70-200 f4 vs f2.8

tp1109

tp1109

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I'm looking to pick up a Canon 70-200 L lens, mainly for outside sports (varying light). I unfortunatly cant stretch to the 2.8 IS II, and dont think the IS on the f4 will be that beneficial over the non-is for stopping the action dead over the non-IS, therefore cant decide whether to go for a non-IS f4 or a second hand 2.8 (or even save up and buy new?)?

Will I regret not stretching to the 2.8?

The extra weight is not really a concern as I won't particularly be carrying it around too much, more concerned with IQ?

Tom
 
for sport even in good light I'd get a 2.8 if you can even if that means going tamron or sigma you will inevitably need the light gathering abilities in British conditions and your pics will also benefit from better seperation of the subject from the background.

Sigma and Tamron both do f2.8 versions with stabilisation for about the same money as the canon non is f2.8. Failing that you can pick up a second hand sigma HSM f2.8 for much the same money as a second hand canon f4.
 
What camera are you using. The f4 will need a higher I so for the same conditions so that might have a bearing on your choice.
Matt
 
You might would like to consider Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC as reasonably priced alternative?
 
If you're photographing sports you'll probably be using a high enough shutter speed to not need IS. It'll be lighter without IS as well.
 
You'll regret it 100% not getting f/2.8

Get the Canon non IS or even the Sigma will do a good job but forget the Tamron, while its a decent lens the AF is woeful compared to the Canon and its also slower than the Sigma.
 
The benefit of f/2.8 is the option to use f/2.8 and performance/compatibility w/ TC's. All of my lenses are f/2.8 (except my 85mm and 300-800mm) but I don't often use them at f/2.8. However, when I need to I can.

Technique/SS are much more important to action photography than IS is.
 
Sounds like the 2.8 is the one to go for for my needs! Just need to save up a bit more now, thanks for the advice all!

Tom
 
Gary Coyle said:
You'll regret it 100% not getting f/2.8

Get the Canon non IS or even the Sigma will do a good job but forget the Tamron, while its a decent lens the AF is woeful compared to the Canon and its also slower than the Sigma.
Click to expand...
The new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC USD is on pair with Canon in auto-focus speed. It also has decent build quality, weather resistant construction and effective image stabilization. In addition it comes with 5 years manufacture warranty. All for lot less money than Canon 70-200 f2.8 II. Of course Canon still has the edge as overall package, but I wouldn't write off that Tamron so easily. Especially if money matters.
 
Tamron being better than Canon...come on. I admit, if cash is tight, get the Sigma, if it's even tighter,get the Tamron.
My 17-50mm 2.8 is Tamron. Yeah it's sharp, and its soo much better than my kit lens. But I'll be upgrading to Canon's 17-55 2.8 Is next year.
The Af motor is okay, but it doesn't amaze me. And don't try use it for quick shots, you need to take a few seconds longer as it on occasions, hunts for focus. Build quality is okay, better than Kit lens, but again, its nothing compared to sigma or Canon.
I'm not saying that it's the worse decision I've made in regards to a lens. I'd do it over again if I had to. I just want better quality now I've upgraded my camera.
 
I'm not a sports photographer, but when I was shooting a wedding at the weekend and taking candids inside the church with my 70-200 f/2.8 I was eternally grateful I hadn't bought an f/4. I just wouldn't have got the shots.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
I'm not a sports photographer, but when I was shooting a wedding at the weekend and taking candids inside the church with my 70-200 f/2.8 I was eternally grateful I hadn't bought an f/4. I just wouldn't have got the shots.

Phil
Click to expand...

Phil hi, interested to know why you wouldnt have got the shot(s), would 1 stop have made that much difference to the image if you'd racked the Iso up by 1 stop. I'm assuming dof wasnt the issue.
 
MatBin said:
Phil hi, interested to know why you wouldnt have got the shot(s), would 1 stop have made that much difference to the image if you'd racked the Iso up by 1 stop. I'm assuming dof wasnt the issue.
Click to expand...

I was at 1600 ISO - the border of acceptability on my 1DsIII in my opinion. I guess if I'd used the 5DIII it would have been less of an issue.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
I was at 1600 ISO - the border of acceptability on my 1DsIII in my opinion. I guess if I'd used the 5DIII it would have been less of an issue.

Phil
Click to expand...

The 5D3 has in my view really shaken things up, an f4 lens pushing up the Iso a few years ago meant you had no option but to go to the 2.8 or suffer the consequences. Now the 5D3 has such clean files at such high Iso its quite acceptable to use an f4 instead and rack the Iso up one stop from where a "normal" camera would have suffered and have a perfectly acceptable file.
Seriously, buying my 5D3 has "saved" me a lot of money :)
That's what I told the wife anyway.
 
I'm surprised at everyone saying definitely get the f/2.8, I mean sure inside it would be understandable, but if he's outside I'd be surprised if he needed f/2.8 often, in extremely overcast days I've never needed f/2.8 when skiing, and they're commonly moving at 60+
 
Gary Coyle said:
I actually laughed at that
Click to expand...

The new USD focussing from tamron is actually excellent I wouldn't say it's as good as canon's USM but it is easily on a par with sigma's HSM so we can no longer laugh at tamron's af which finally makes there 70-200 attractive as previously it was great value and really sharp it just suffered from dire af.
 
RainMaker said:
Yep, that people snobbery is really funny, when they cannot accept the badge and high price tag is not the most important thing for everybody. It's not coincidence Canon is making the most expensive lenses in white, isn't it?

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC USD Review
Click to expand...

Why would you buy an f/2.8 lens that is really only recommended from f/4 onwards?

Likewise, his testing was done on static targets.
 
DemiLion said:
Why would you buy an f/2.8 lens that is really only recommended from f/4 onwards?

Likewise, his testing was done on static targets.
Click to expand...

The same reason camera makers have iso 12800/6400 when 3200 is all that's recommended, there's certain circumstances when you need it, but you will be better off not using it in most circumstances.
 
DemiLion said:
Why would you buy an f/2.8 lens that is really only recommended from f/4 onwards?
Click to expand...

Almost all lenses are "recommended" to be used stopped down a couple because no lens is at it's sharpest wide open. So, as general rule, if you're starting at f/4 you're looking @ ~ f/8 for comparable performance.

I don't have experience w/ the specific lenses being discussed so I don't know if the "general rule" strictly applies here, but it will probably apply to some extent.
 
oscaroque said:
Does this means that a 2.8 lens will do its best at 4.0?
Click to expand...

My 70-200 f/2.8 is excellent wide open, but I've no doubt it would be technically better at f/4.
 
From what I have read the current F4 IS L lens beat the "old" F2.8 IS L lens when both were at F4, the F4 lens then improved at F5.6 (no doubt the 2.8 also did) and stayed pretty constant thereafter (probbaly dipping at f32).
I read the new 2.8 is better than the old one at 2.8 so presumably up to the same standard as the F4 (IS L) when both are at F4 and side by side thereafter (or maybe the new 2.8 is slightly better, tbh I didnt read much more about the new 2.8 as I had bough the F4).
 
sk66 said:
Almost all lenses are "recommended" to be used stopped down a couple because no lens is at it's sharpest wide open. So, as general rule, if you're starting at f/4 you're looking @ ~ f/8 for comparable performance.

I don't have experience w/ the specific lenses being discussed so I don't know if the "general rule" strictly applies here, but it will probably apply to some extent.
Click to expand...

The Canon is absolutely fine at f/2.8, which is why it costs what it does - and that's the point.


Frankly if I was going to buy a lens that didn't kick in until f/4, I'd prefer to buy the Canon 70-200/4 IS. It's better than the Tamron and it's cheaper.

Btw the issue wasn't so much sharpness as vignetting. Try watching the vid!
 
DemiLion said:
The Canon is absolutely fine at f/2.8, which is why it costs what it does - and that's the point.


Frankly if I was going to buy a lens that didn't kick in until f/4, I'd prefer to buy the Canon 70-200/4 IS. It's better than the Tamron and it's cheaper.

Btw the issue wasn't so much sharpness as vignetting. Try watching the vid!
Click to expand...

+ Isn't the 70-200 f/4 IS the sharpest of the bunch? I haven't got first hand knowledge, but I've heard the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii at f/4.
 
I own a Canon 70-200 f2.8 Mk1L non OS lens ie the original one. I use this mainly for football and shoot wide open. For me the images I get are very sharp. I often wonder how sharp is sharp as I really struggle with seeing a difference.
If you don't need OS buy the Mk1 lens and save £900.
 
DemiLion said:
The Canon is absolutely fine at f/2.8, which is why it costs what it does - and that's the point.
Click to expand...

My Nikon is "fine" at 2.8 as well... and yes, that's the point.
Vignetting? My Nikon (VRII) vignettes at f/2.8 200mm and I'm sure the Canon does as well. (reportedly ~1.5 stops on FF for the IS II)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top