Which canon 70-200L? f4 or f2.8

B

Bridgett

Guest
Is the extra stop the be all and end all?
I got the f4is version and since its arrival have agonised over whether I should have forked out the xtra for the f2.8. I want the lens mainly for candids and portraits and sporting events to a lesser degree. Which lens is going to give me the better quality image generally. Is the bokeh on the 2.8 vastly superior to the f4?
Perhaps this is a silly question but humour me I'm new!!!
 
Both are great lenses - superb lenses in fact. The 2.8 is significantly heavier, but not necessarily much sharper. 2.8 is useful, but no, not the be-all nor end-all.

You can be very happy and content with your choice :)
 
Jonnyreb said:
Both are great lenses - superb lenses in fact. The 2.8 is significantly heavier, but not necessarily much sharper. 2.8 is useful, but no, not the be-all nor end-all.

You can be very happy and content with your choice :)
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
cutting through all the BS weight price etc etc
what FINALLY convinced me to go for the 2.8 was the fact that I could add a 2x TC and still get a "usable" appature should I feel the need
 
I must agree that was my thinking,
but given the sort of pictures (candid, portrait) you want it for
an extender is unlikely to be needed

imho
 
mmcp42 said:
I must agree that was my thinking,
but given the sort of pictures (candid, portrait) you want it for
an extender is unlikely to be needed

imho
Click to expand...

This is true but it's also relevent that the extra stop will provide more background isolation for portraiture. I ran both side by side for a while and then ditched the f/4 for this very reason.
I've just ordered an 2.8 IS version (to replace the non-IS) so that I can stay wide open in more situations.

Bob
 
Totally agree with those views above , I have the F4(non IS however) and I think this is dogs ******** the clarity of shot is awesome and the ability to add my x2TC and still use all of the functions (with a drop in f No) is fantastic just waiting to strap to my new 400d ans use in anger!!:)
 
just having come back from vietnam and its neighbours the range 70-200mm was ideal for street candids where I wasn't wanting to attract the attention of the subject. I used the f/4 IS and it was ideal due to its quite small size...i could walk around all day with the lens attatched without much attention...apart from being one for the few white guys in saigon with a dodgy haircut (...I have so many packs of gum and postcards for $1).

I bought mine in HK and tried out the f/2.8...to be honest, I think if i have gone for the fatter choice it would have spent more time in the hotel room safe. Certainly though, when the light dimmed the extra stop would have helped get a decent shutter speed...how much though, I don't know. In those situations I have a feeling f/2.8 wouldn't be fast enough either.

each to their own though...i don't think you will really know until you have bought and used for a bit.
 
The 2.8 IS is amhoosive and wieghs like a sand barge. It's heavier [or feels that way] than the 100-400 but it is a superb lens. I guess it's horses for courses, do you need the extra stop, can you get by without the extender?

I went for the 2.8 IS simply because I had the cash and thought I would regret it later if I didn't. Having said that if I spotted a good copy of the 2.8 non-IS I would have snapped that up.
 
h4rri said:
The 2.8 IS is amhoosive and wieghs like a sand barge.
Click to expand...

I received mine today (the IS version) and I was suprised how light it felt after all the reading on the net about how obtrusively heavy it is........mind you I have to actually go out with it yet so I may change my mind :LOL:
 
"what FINALLY convinced me to go for the 2.8 was the fact that I could add a 2x TC and still get a "usable" appature should I feel the need..............."

I was tempted to buy the 2x TC for the f4.... primarily if needing it for say a football match, would the drop in stop be too much to warrant the expense on the f4?.

Also, Canon BOB, that very fact about image isolation is a big draw I know. Esp for portraits. Is the difference really that significant?
 
Bridgett said:
"what FINALLY convinced me to go for the 2.8 was the fact that I could add a 2x TC and still get a "usable" appature should I feel the need..............."

I was tempted to buy the 2x TC for the f4.... primarily if needing it for say a football match, would the drop in stop be too much to warrant the expense on the f4?.

Also, Canon BOB, that very fact about image isolation is a big draw I know. Esp for portraits. Is the difference really that significant?
Click to expand...

Depends on the light bright or otherwise..
f/2.8 + 2x tc drops to f/5.6
f/4+ 2x tc would drop to f/8
Though a 1.4x tc you only lose 1 stop so f/4 would equate to
f/5.6
 
Oh the 2xTC makes a significant drop to f/8. What focal length will the 1.4xTC on the 70-200 with a 1.6 crop factor equate to? would it be worth my while at all?
 
70*1.6*1.4 at one end = 156 on a "regular 35mm"
200*1.6*1.4 at the other = 448 on a "regular 35mm"
 
Maths never was my strong point... thanks M McP. That actually sounds decent enough and in good light in the summer I feel I could get the worth out of it. Is it the type of thing you would come across often 2nd hand?
 
Just been through this whole debate myself & ended up buying the Sigma f2.8. I'm spending the change on a 1.4 or 2x TC & some filters.

An added benefit is that nobody looks at it as it's a boring black colour :)
 
MMMMM you intrigue me Canon Bob, have you inside info an the imminent launch of a new lens? Or are you thinking of selling yours?!!!?:

So whats the thoughts on the SIGMA f2.8 70-200 Mr Grubby?
Do you find it compares well to the canon?
 
Bridgett said:
MMMMM you intrigue me Canon Bob, have you inside info an the imminent launch of a new lens? Or are you thinking of selling yours?!!!?:

So whats the thoughts on the SIGMA f2.8 70-200 Mr Grubby?
Do you find it compares well to the canon?
Click to expand...

I've never tried the Canon , I compared the reviews , compared the prices then took advice from TPF users. I just wish I'd bought it years ago :)



Ps. It's Gubby not Grubby :nono:
 
Apologies MR GUBBY, I thought Grubby was a weird not to mention off-putting handle now I no longer doubt your personal hygiene!!!

Whats the weight of the sigma compared to the canon?
 
Bridgett said:
Apologies MR GUBBY, I thought Grubby was a weird not to mention off-putting handle now I no longer doubt your personal hygiene!!!

Whats the weight of the sigma compared to the canon?
Click to expand...

:LOL:

Sigma :- 1.38Kg
Canon :- 1.31Kg (non-IS)

so about a mars bar difference :)

*mars bars are very noisy at high ISO and are no substitute for IS
 
My standard response :p I've had the Canon F4 and 2.8IS and the Sigma F2.8.

My preference in order is

F4
Sigma
Canon F2.8IS

The only reason I finished up with the F2.8 IS is the weather sealing. The F4 and the Sigma are at least as sharp, just as good colour rendition (the Sigma is a bit more neutral) and a lot cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top