Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 / F4 IS which one ?

S

sgott

Messages
222
Name
simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone be of assistance in what seems a long time debate over which of the two canon lenses would be the one to choose? Given the obvious cost differences is the F2.8 IS the better of the two lenses ? Ive trawled review sites and am stuck !!:help:
 
It's such a personal decision sgott. The best one for me was and still is, the f4 non IS. Some people would really struggle without the extra stop AND the IS.

It's all down to what you shoot. Perhaps if you let us know what you shoot, people can make some cases for you to consider. :)
 
This question is constantly asked and there are loads of threads on the subject if you do a search.

Here's one...

CLICK

The f4 version is loads cheaper and just as sharp, if not sharper.

The faster aperture and the IS are invaluable if you really need them.. It really depends what/where you intend to shoot.
 
F4 is cheaper and lighter, I own the F4 and will not be looking to move to the F2.8 for a long time.
 
Thanks for the replies - more food for thought !
I use the 30D for anything and everything - indoor portrait stuff, general outdoor photography, close up indoor ebay stuff - and shots of our two dogs when I can get them still enough ! Also want to do some wildlife and sports photography this year.
 
Well if you are looking to getting into wildlife and sports photography, it would always be best to get the longest and fastest lens you can afford. I think that 200mm would be a bit short for wildlife, I am ordering a 2x TC for my 120-300mm just for that extra reach. I don't do sports but having an f/2.8 tele sure helps with low light situations, and not only for that.
You should consider the weight of the lens aswell. Carrying a heavy lens on long walks can be tiring. The extra purchases you'll need to make should also be considered. After buying my long tele, I had to spend more money on a more sturdy tripod, a new ball & socket head, thinking of buying a good monopod, not to mention the cost of a good 105mm filter. If the UV filter was reaching £100 I don't even want to check for the price of a good polariser.

Why not looking into the Sigma 100-300mm F/4 aswell. It's cheaper and really sharp. But my suggestion would be to go for an f/2.8 lens. You can always step it down for sharper results but being able to shoot at f/2.8 is a must, especially for sports.
 
I use a 70-200 F4 for sport but have a 100-400 as backup.

The 70-200 F4 was bought more because of weight, it's easy to use all day, whereas you know when you've been using the heavier lens. I don't tend to use the IS in sport, but it would be handy for handheld long distance bird shots.

If it's a matter of costs, you could use the 70-2.8 with a 2x convertor and still have autofocus.
 
CT I notice on your listing you have in your arsenal a 2.8 70-200 lens as well. What do you get the most use out of your 2.8 with ?
 
sgott said:
CT I notice on your listing you have in your arsenal a 2.8 70-200 lens as well. What do you get the most use out of your 2.8 with ?
Click to expand...

Well I use it mostly for birds at the moment in situations where the 500mm is just too long. It does mean getting very close to them- probably around 5 or 6 feet, While the fast 2.8 aperture is great in low light though it does mean DOF is paper thin, so it's usually beneficial to stop down a little.

As a walk around lens though for picking faces out of a crowd or in the street, that's just what you'd want - big aperture narrow DOF.

It's a very versatile lens - highly recommeded. :)
 
Thanks , the more I read the more I am becoming tempted to go down the 2.8 route. I use a 24-105 as a walkabout - everyday lens but it sounds like the 70-200 will knock spots off it :)
Do you find the weight of it an issue ?
 
Well I dunno about knock spots off it - they're two very different critters for different situations. ;)

It isn't just the sharpness with the 70-200, which is a given - the colour and contrast straight out of the camera with L glass is bang on the money. It costs that much for a reason!

It's not quite as heavy as the 100-400L but it's a weighty beast and yep -you'll know you're carrying it around.
 
Cheers. All good justification for laying out a second mortgage for one :D
Its obviously worth it, after looking at your website and the quality of images it produces.

Shoulders will have to be broad to get the cost of it past the wife ! :LOL:
 
Well those shots are taken with the 100-400L and the 500mm f4L, some with the 70-200.

Don't run away with the idea that the 70-200 is an ideal wildlife lens unless you can get close, but these are a couple of shots definitely taken with it.

OY8N8497-01.jpg


OY8N7837-01.jpg
 
Probably around 5 feet.

As you can see, in the first shot the light was grim so it was shot wide open at f2.8 which doesn't even bring the far leg into focus when you're working that close.

In the second shot with better light I was able to stop down a couple of stops and you can see the difference.
 
Okay, controversy :D

I've had the F4 (non IS) the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and currently I've got the Canon F2.8IS.

My preference, in order is:

Canon F4
Sigma
Canon F2.8IS

The F4 is the sharpest of the lot and I'd say it's quicker focussing that the Canon F2.8IS. The sigma is just as sharp, if not sharper, than the Canon F2.8 IS and considerably cheaper. There's nothing actually wrong with the Canon F2.8IS but after having the first two I was expecting something more and it doesn't really deliver anything extra, for me anyway.
 
Well you gotta speak as you find Doddy, but I don't think you should be expecting more (over the f4) other than the 1 stop advantage and the IS. Shame though mate if you don't feel you're getting it.
 
What I was expecting was focussing speed and sharpness. I've been checking through the archives the last few weeks and since I got this my percentage of keepers due to mis-focussing is definitely down. I'm fairly sure it's not a technique issue as even using the 100-400 at the snowman rally last month I was getting what I expected to be the norm. Maybe I've just got a friday afternoon sample :shrug:
 
Possible it's a bad example... or needs calibrating? Might be worth having it looked at.
 
this is what I'm speaking about., Two shots taken sequentially on the 1D MkII, AI servo, focussed on his chin (100% crops, no processing) First is fine, second is off and it's not shake.

ML1W8440.jpg


ML1W8441.jpg
 
I think it's also worth a mention that an IS lens will focus faster if the IS is switched off.
Other than that, the greater mass of glass being moved will slow down the beast.....the 85L is an excellent example to use here.

Bob
 
CT said:
How many focus points?
Click to expand...

one, you won't catch me out with that one ;)

Bob, yep, I realise that but my Sigma was pretty much spot on all the time. Any problems I normally knew it as soon as I'd taken the shot and user error was definitely to blame. With this thing I'm never sure what I've got till I see them uploaded.
 
It seems strange to me that the lens with the larger 2.8 aperture is available with IS but the f4 isn't, even though thats the lens which will need longer exposures.

Why can't we have an f4 IS?
 
Comfortably Numb said:
It seems strange to me that the lens with the larger 2.8 aperture is available with IS but the f4 isn't, even though thats the lens which will need longer exposures.

Why can't we have an f4 IS?
Click to expand...

There is a 70-200 f/4 IS

Bob
 
dod said:
one, you won't catch me out with that one ;)
Click to expand...
LOL. It wasn't a trick question, and never having shot this stuff I'm not sure whether one or more points would be the norm.

A few points though which strike me about this Doddy...

I's a pretty dark image and we know that AF systems need contrast (detail) to focus on.

You've obtained focus on the first shot from that pretty small single AF point on the chin at a point which obviously had enough detail for the AF to lock on.

The bike is obviously travelling at speed during this sequence and it's highly unlikely that you'd be holding the AF point over the same point on that second shot. The AF point only needs to fall momentarily over a point with insufficent detail and it's going to struggle and hunt?
 
CT said:
The AF point only needs to fall momentarily over a point with insufficent detail and it's going to struggle and hunt?
Click to expand...

Possibly, just checked it and the AF point on the second is just to the left of the chin on a shadowed bit. Just feel underwhelmed by it considering all the hype it gets.

Anyway, this has been dragged way off topic now, sorry sgott :)
 
I can't believe how often this question seems to come up! (not that I'm criticising, i asked it just a few days ago!)

I'd really like the f2.8, but I'm not sure I can stretch the budget that far so may end up going with the f4...

:thinking:
 
No problem Dod ! its good to read about others experiences with picture taking :)
The bird pics are very good too CT - I would struggle to get close enough as the minute I step into the garden I have a large retriever at my side - not much good for getting close to birds :LOL: hence the requirement for a long range zoom of high quality.
It does seem to be a recurring question, Ive noticed that too, its just v hard to reach a decision either way, given that both lenses offer a great deal in terms of quality and uses.
 
If you do decide - let us know how you get on! I'm still thinking on it, that and how I sneak a big white lens past the missus...

:cautious:
 
First one's the hard one, after that it's just another big white lens :D
 
In the missus eyes a riduculously expensive big white lens !! :nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top