70-200 f 2.8 or f4. . . .

swb landy

swb landy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
987
Name
david
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello evryone,
i,m in a bit of a pickle, i,m looking to buy a bit of decent glass, s/h is all i can really afford but i dont no which way to go.
I,m had my heart set on a 70-200 f2.4 L, seen a few go on the forum for not too bad money, even thought i,d hold out for a mk1 IS.
Now i,m hearing stories about the f4 being a better lens, meant to be sharper, and its lighter, and cheaper, and if its lighter, i wouldnt need IS.
I started mainly shooting cars, i still love doing so, thats the reason i fancy one of these, but i,m starting to venture into other forms of photography, so if the f4 is cheaper, it means i can put some cash towards a nice 10-20 sigma or something like that.
Would LOVE to hear anyone,s thoughts on the subject,
here,s hoping,
Dave
 
Last edited:
I went for f4is as I felt I needed the IS version,added a 1.4 converter too, the lens is razor sharp even wide open and much lighter than the 2.8 version. So if you don't fancy the weight of the 2.8 then the f4 is a brilliant lens even with the converter fitted.
 
MatBin said:
I went for f4is as I felt I needed the IS version,added a 1.4 converter too, the lens is razor sharp even wide open and much lighter than the 2.8 version. So if you don't fancy the weight of the 2.8 then the f4 is a brilliant lens even with the converter fitted.
Click to expand...
Got any pics with the converter ? Do you use a Canon or 3rd party 1.4TC?
 
Thanx Matt, well to be honest i was thinking about a converter, but thought i would need the 2.8 to get the best results, obviously i was wrong again !.
I just cant make my mind up, ill probably wait to see what comes along at the right price and let that make the choice for me,
thanx for the reply and advise,
Dave
 
Ah, male jewelry. :D I have both the 2.8IS and straight f4. Don't over estimate the difference in depth of field. Its ONLY one stop. Check it out with an on line calculator. Even if your doing available light portraits close up, you'll probably whant to stop down. The same with the extra quality of the 2.8, you'll only ever notice it on a lens test chart!:rules: Big trades for little gains.

Size and weight? I used to forget the f4 was in my bag, you'll NEVER forget you have the 2.8IS with you! Its big and heavy man, theres a lot of glass in a 2.8:shake:

IS is worth its size and weight, but it WONT stop subject movement!

Both take the (Canon) X1.4 very well, even an old f4 and Mk1 converter. If you MUST use a X2 make it a later version. Vast image quality improvements were made after the mark 1. (If you can afford a Mk3, BUY A LENS)!

Today I'd probably, not having tried one, settle for an f4IS, but having said all that, I very rarely use an up to 200mm. If I think I need the extra reach I pick up the 100-400 for the reach AND range. (Standard is a 24-105). Hope that helps.
 
I have the f4 is version. If I can use it it gets put on my camera. Its my only l lens, besides my nifty 50 nothing else gets on my camera at shoots, it's that good.

My friend had a 2, he went and got the 4 after using mine one day.


I'd get a 4 ;-)
 
Last edited:
Well looks like i,m looking for the f4 them eh !.
With being still quite new to this i dont want to dive in ( like i normally do ) and start throwing money around that i havnt got, so a big thank you for all your replys, it really has helped me out,
cheers again,
Dave
 
I have had the f4L and the f4L IS, and the IS was the better lens IMO. I now have the 2.8L IS and it whips the ass off the f4's. Yes it is big and heavy, but worth the effort. Mines is the MKII version which may be out of your budget, but you do get them popping up now and again SH.

BTW, I think you loose at least a stop if you fit a tele converter.
 
Last edited:
gopz said:
Got any pics with the converter ? Do you use a Canon or 3rd party 1.4TC?
Click to expand...

A lot of images in this gallery were shot on a 5DII, 70-200 f4 IS and Canon 1.4 TC II.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-05-05-Bristol-Folk/22883050_8GWR5H
and the last third of this gallery with a 5DIII and same lenses.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2013-04-11-BLOG-Song-from-the/28891559_FsP5m6
Here's one from the second gallery.
20130413-212326-I39A9069-S.jpg


Personally, I find the combination well matched. Even pixel peeping the loss of quality is barely noticeable.
You do lose a stop of light, but the 5DII and 5DIII are more than capable of making that up by pushing the ISO.

Also - for the two galleries linked above, I was grateful not to be lugging a 70-200 f2.8 around for the duration.
The first gallery I was working alongside two other photographers, both with f2.8s, they didn't get any extra images because of the f2.8 and when we occasionally met for a chat towards the end of three very long days they regarded my lightweight f4 with envious eyes.
 
BIGEYE said:
I have had the f4L and the f4L IS, and the IS was the better lens IMO. I now have the 2.8L IS and it whips the ass off the f4's. Yes it is big and heavy, but worth the effort. Mines is the MKII version which may be out of your budget, but you do get them popping up now and again SH.

BTW, I think you loose at least a stop if you fit a tele converter.
Click to expand...

AHHHHHH. . . . another fly in the ointment.. . . . :bang::bonk::gag:
 
From looking at your Motorsport pictures you do quite a few rallies which I know don't always have the best light so the f2.8 would probably be a better buy otherwise you'll be bumping up the Iso quite a bit with the f4.
 
I've the F4L non-IS version, which i think is a cracking lens, really sharp pics and very quick focusing. Most of what I use it for is equestrian action shots, which means i'm using a high shutter speed anyway to freeze the motion, so don't really have an issue of not having the IS.

So this really comes down to what it is that you're going to use it for ? Do you need the IS ?

Incidentally the previous comment about teleconverters is correct, I've got a 1.4x one and it does add an extra stop, turning the F4 to a F5.6. I think the 2x converter adds two stops (but you should check that.) Depends on the body you're using, but most wont focus properly with a max apperture of worse than F5.6. So if you really want to be able to use a 2x teleconverter then it'll have to be with the F2.8 lens.
 
I'm using a 300mm f4 with a TC, no VR/IS - but since I only use it outdoors ... plenty enough light at f/5.6 - f/8 for most occasions.
 
Not a Canon user by any means but my GF is and swapped her f4 for a F2.8 II IS - more for the 2.8 and low light (IS) plus she got a good deal at Cambrian...

I read some reviews of the various 70-200 models, from Nikon, Sony, Canon, Sigma and Tamron IIRC. All were superb as well - you have to remember that Canon have 4 variants, Nikon had only just introduced the VR2. Take home messages were VR2 and 2.8 IS had the edge overall; the Sigma and Tamron redeemed themselves; but the 'surprise' was HOW good the f4 non-IS was and at a fraction of the price of the other lenses tested, ie it was 1/3 of the price of the 2.8IS but the more expensive lens was only marginally better.

Moral of the story is: you will end up hankering over the top of the line 2.8ISII but you won't be disappointed by the f4 model.
 
BIGEYE said:
I have had the f4L and the f4L IS, and the IS was the better lens IMO. I now have the 2.8L IS and it whips the ass off the f4's. Yes it is big and heavy, but worth the effort. Mines is the MKII version which may be out of your budget, but you do get them popping up now and again SH.
Click to expand...

The f/4 IS is better than the non-IS version - sharper, circular aperture blades, weather sealing.

I wouldn't say the f/2.8 II "whips the ass" of the f/4 models. Compared to the f/4 IS, it's maybe fractionally sharper but there's not much in it - basically it's just an f/2.8 version. I've had both.
 
Well after much teeth grinding, head scratching and soul searching. . . i decieded to go for the f4 IS . . . started searching, here , there, everywhere, then i found and bought. . . . . a mk1 2.8 IS !, should be here tomorro, and i,m going to Otterburn for a rally on sunday, i,ll let you no how i get on.
Thanx for all the help and advise, it really did help,
Dave
 
The f/4 is a super lens, one of my favourite's. As already stated it is very nearly as sharp as the f/2.8 II, but much easier to handle and half the price. Unless I absolutely had to shoot at f/2.8 I would carry the f/4.
 
Well i,m going to try a few shots as soon as i can, might seem like a strange question, but how do i check if its doing what it should, exactly how sharp is sharp. . . . sorry to sound a bit stupid but i dont now, and if i dont no, i ask !,
Dave
 
Arghhh, I'm in the same predicament. I am tempted to get the 2.8 just for lower light shooting. I have also read the 4 being a sharper lens. I usually like to move around a lot when I'm shooting so weight is a major factor.
 
ive been down this route - bought stuf - sold stuf and now happy with were i am...

Long story cut short - have a 60d and a 5d.. originally bought a 18-135... then a 70-200 F4 canon for £350 - a great lens BUT found a lot of blury shots and stuf id really like a 2.8 for ... it depends on what you shoot.. but for me (portraits and landscapes ) the 70-200 although light and usable 'needed' to be faster.

Borrowed a sigma 70-200 non os - great lens - images not as crisp as the F4 canon but far more 'usable' though a tickle heavier.

what did i buy ? a new sigma 70-200 OS found that with OS the usablility of the lens was night and day... i can hand hold /25 of a second @ 200m and even at 2.8 its so crisp, at F4 i would argue anyone being able to tell the difference between it and the canon version... BUT do you need weather sealing ? also what the sigma gives you is two forms of OS one for horizontal and one for vertical (so you can use it panning )

am i happy with it ? my god yes.. it never comes off the camera!
 
I've got the basic 70-200mm F4L and find it amazing!
It's the sharpist lens i own by far (24-105 F4L, 50 F1.4, 100 F2.8 macro).
I haven't used the F4 IS, or any of the F2.8's so can't compare them, but is the F4 IS twice as good? it's twice the price, so too the F2.8!, and the F2.8 IS II is four times the price! is that 4 times better than the F4?
I'm guessing its a case of...'to get a model slightly better than the last, you have to pay a considerable amount more'!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top