Lenses

stephen ley

stephen ley

Messages
153
Name
Deadlysteve
Edit My Images
Yes
Could you chaps advise me on which one of these lenses is better. I always take my 75-300 Tamron wherever I go but want to take it to the next level. (as high as possible) I want to avoid camera shake as well as shoot in lower light.


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM Lens

Thank you in advance for your comments
 
the F2.8 is the better of the 2 but then it depends on the budget you have becuase the 2.8 is more.
I have the 2.8 and its really fast and i have never had any trouble from it at all.
 
I use the f4 and although I would love to get myself a f2.8 version I don't think I would get rid of the f4 as if you don't need that extra stop the f4 lens is 1kg lighter over the f2.8.
 
Apart from the weight/price difference the extra stop the f/2.8 gives you has a bigger advantage in low light despite the IS as you'll have double the shutter speed available to stop any subject blur. IS is great but fast glass is better :thumbs:
 
PXl8

So the F/2.8 is the better lens?
 
The F2.8 is the better lens.
But only if you need the advantages it gives that make it the better lens over the F4 and don't care abotu the associated drawbacks to those advantages.

I know the F4 is sharper wide open, but I wonder how they both compare at F4
 
RichardtheSane said:
The F2.8 is the better lens.
But only if you need the advantages it gives that make it the better lens over the F4 and don't care abotu the associated drawbacks to those advantages.

I know the F4 is sharper wide open, but I wonder how they both compare at F4
Click to expand...
Both at f4 the f4 just has the edge.
 
pxl8 said:
Apart from the weight/price difference the extra stop the f/2.8 gives you has a bigger advantage in low light despite the IS as you'll have double the shutter speed available to stop any subject blur. IS is great but fast glass is better :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Plus the focussing advantages that an aperture of f/2.8 usually brings.
 
It depends very much on what you mean by 'better'. If we're talking about image quality then from my experience I have to say I think the f4 has the edge. If we're talking about low light photography then the f2.8 has the edge, or does it? The f4 has a later IS version which could be argued makes the low light capabilities of the f2.8 all but redundant, or does it? It's easier to obtain focus with the f2.8 in low light even if the superior IS of the f4 makes it just as usable in the same light from a shutter speed perspective. You see where I'm going with all this. Both lenses are excellent and 'better' is a very subjective topic and can vary according to the needs. Better for one person may not be better for another and as both lenses are superb, no one but you can answer the question. The f4 is much lighter than the f2.8 and for me I found it much more usable as a result - but that's just me. Quite frankly the only thing the f2.8 has going for it is the f2.8 aperture, but whether that justifies the extra cost and extra weight only you can answer. I do wonder sometimes if the f2.8 is just a status symbol. Just my two pennyworth.
 
consider the sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG as well, 1/2 the price of the canon f/2.8
 
ok so the Tamron 75-300mm is f4 so what makes the Canon so much better?

What does L lens mean?
Is the image stabiliser that good?
 
Gofer said:
It depends very much on what you mean by 'better'. If we're talking about image quality then from my experience I have to say I think the f4 has the edge. If we're talking about low light photography then the f2.8 has the edge, or does it? The f4 has a later IS version which could be argued makes the low light capabilities of the f2.8 all but redundant, or does it? It's easier to obtain focus with the f2.8 in low light even if the superior IS of the f4 makes it just as usable in the same light from a shutter speed perspective. You see where I'm going with all this. Both lenses are excellent and 'better' is a very subjective topic and can vary according to the needs. Better for one person may not be better for another and as both lenses are superb, no one but you can answer the question. The f4 is much lighter than the f2.8 and for me I found it much more usable as a result - but that's just me. Quite frankly the only thing the f2.8 has going for it is the f2.8 aperture, but whether that justifies the extra cost and extra weight only you can answer. I do wonder sometimes if the f2.8 is just a status symbol. Just my two pennyworth.
Click to expand...


What he said ^^
 
:agree: mostly except for the status symbol bit. In my case anyway. I decided that I could live with the extra weight for the extra stop.

Its a horses for courses thing.

but put it this way I wont be selling my 70-200ff2.8 any time soon, probably ever.
 
:agree::agree: with what been said ,but the 2.8 it is not heavy (might just be me ) the advantages of the 2.8 over the F4 come in to play when you stick a 2x or 1.4x on , as to sharpness the extra couple of elements the 2.8 has over f4 have got to count for something well thats my 2 cents worth
 
Ok, last question on this subject and then I will decide. Is the image stabiliser good?
 
stephen ley said:
Ok, last question on this subject and then I will decide. Is the image stabiliser good?
Click to expand...
Depends entirely on your technique - but it goes from being good to being an image saver.
For me it is the only thing I miss about my current longer lens
 
ok so the Tamron 75-300mm is f4 so what makes the Canon so much better?
 
Its one of Canon's professional L (Luxury) range and benefits from weatherproofing, flourite elements and very high quality build quality and gives better contrast and colour, sharper images and also less distortion. Its like the difference between a old Vauxhall Astra and a BMW, both do the job of getting you from A to B, but once you've tried the BMW, the Astra feels cheap and nasty.
 
stephen ley said:
ok so the Tamron 75-300mm is f4 so what makes the Canon so much better?
Click to expand...
The Tamron is F4-F5.6
So at 70mm you get F4, wheras at 300mm you loose a stop of light to F5.6

The canon 70-200 F4 is still F4 at 200mm - it is sharper than the tamron and has better autofocus.
 
Richard thank you for that, So is the Canon F2.8 still 2.8 at 300mm?
 
Sorry yes your'e right. So is it still 2.8 at 200mm?
 
Just buy the bloody Canon :lol:

Seriously, both the Canon lenses are amazing, its just that one is f2.8 constant and the other is f4 constant.

My other questions is, if you are asking this question, do you really need to upgrade just yet? Maybe look at either a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f2.8. While they dont have IS, they are alot cheaper and may be a good idea to start with

Mike
 
Ok I am saving as we speak, plus they seem to be getting cheaper every week.

Thanks for all the info.
 
i have the 2.8L IS and it really is worth the money. Lovely piece of kit to use...
 
Best I hurry up then!
 
I've got the Canon f4 and the Sigma f2.8 and I love them both! I could sell them and buy the Canon f2.8 but I'm not inclined to do that. Why? because for days with decent light where I'm going to be shooting at f4 and above I take the much smaller and lighter Canon and when I need f2.8 for poor light I take the Sigma.

Now, please don't be offended by this next bit. You say you want to upgrade because you want to shoot in lower light but you don't understand the difference between f4 and f2.8? Well, we all had to start somewhere and you are wise to post your question. Here's the but though...............you need to understand what you want to shoot where and learn about the difference between apertures. It's wise to go and do some reading before you part with what is a significant amount of cash. There is no point in rushing out to buy a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 if you don't even know the reason you need it. You are unlikely to get much from a pretty full on piece of gear if you don't know what it is doing.

Read the theory, test it out on your existing gear and then decide what is the right path for you. Sure come back and ask any questions you may have that remain unanswered but please do not go making crucial decisions based on the one question you have asked. How do you know that we use our lenses for shooting the same subjects as you do?

Simply asking which is better is totally misleading yourself. Which is better for what? If it's for shooting in a church then f2.8, if it is for shooting the kids playing in the park then the f4 because it's a lot lighter would be my choice. You say you want to avoid camera shake, get the f4 because it's smaller and lighter and easier to use, you say you want to shoot in lower light, get the f2.8..................??? It's going to depend on what you want to shoot and so far nobody has even asked you that question!

Please don't take all this too harshly, it is honestly well meant and do come back and ask the more specific questions when you have done some homework. :)
 
No this is good stuff, I do understand apeture though. What I want to be sure of is that when i'm doing shots indoors in poor light I get the best results possible.
Its interesting that you mention a church as I recently photographed my friends wedding.
I think really the attraction for me is avoiding camera shake in low light hence the question regarding IS.
 
What you often get in those situations though is subject movement rather than camera shake. You can put a camera on a tripod and at around 1/30 sec subject movement starts to become a problem.

Get the ISO up and if that still doesn't give you enough speed you can try underexposing by up to a stop. I've tried it and got from 1/15 to 1/60th sec. I then pulled back the exposure in PP. It's a last resort in really low light where you can't use a flash.

For weddings I use a 35mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.8 as well as the Sigma f2.8. The 85mm f1.8 is a little darling of a lens, doesn't break the bank and you get below f2.8! (BTW I use full frame cameras so your framing would be a bit different)

For that kind of low light work, you really can't beat fast glass.

Hope that helps :)
 
I confess I was allowed to use a flash i the chrch and this was ok. The real problems occur when I zoom in to get close face shots, or if i'm outside photographing at distance.
will the IS help here or is it not worth the cash to me.
 
The IS on the 70-200mm is good and could well help in those situations. I have IS on my 100-400mm which believe it or not is about the same size! I have shot with a friends Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS and I actually prefer to shoot with the Sigma.

Here's my reasoning. The Canon f2.8 is a whopping beast, the Sigma, although not that much shorter is a lot lighter and is actually easier to hand hold. The advantage that I feel I would get from the IS is negated by struggling to hand hold the blasted thing in the first place!

I did a training course recently with a fellow pro who was shooting with the Canon and you really can't tell the difference in the shots we produced. I might ask if he still has his exif though, it would be interesting to compare the shutter speeds since we were both on Av. I'd guess he got a little faster out of the Canon.

Have a look for Joe McNally's blog or talk to CT on here about long lens technique. believe it or not there are ways of holding and using these things that will make more difference to your shots than IS ever will.

Hope that helps :)
 
AliB said:
... believe it or not there are ways of holding and using these things that will make more difference to your shots than IS ever will.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. Good technique with a telephoto can be worth several stops of shutter speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top