Canon 70-200 f4 or f2.8?

N

naveen.nag

Suspended / Banned
Messages
214
Name
Naveen
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I am planning to buy the L series lens from canon (my first L). So giving it a lot of thought as the difference between the 2 in terms of price is quite considerable.

My requirement is that i need an L series glass obviously for the amazing IQ however, here are my points where i need inputs. Btw i am looking for lens with IS. I have listed pros and cons of each below. Btw i use a modest 550d right now.

F4
Pros:
Lesser cost
Light weight
Cons:
Smaller aperture relatively
If i use 2x teleconverter i will be down by 2 stops. I may choose to use tc as 200 might not be suffiecient. Losing 2 stops is my concern with f4 version.

F2.8
Pros:
Bigger aperture
Use of 2x tc will have lessee impact on aperture compared to F4
Cons:
Expensive
Heavier

Looking forward to some valueable inputs based on your view and experience.

Thanks
Naveen
 
I'm no camera expert, but if you need a f2.8, a f4 won't work.

The f2.8 is the best lens if you can afford it. Depends on what you shoot if you really need the aperture.
 
Quite a few threads on this if you search, but it boils down to this IMHO.

If you need f/2.8, then f/4 is no use. If you want to use a 2x extender, the f/4 lens won't AF. But the f/2.8 lens is twice the weight and cost.

Also consider the new 70-300L. It's a great all rounder, if you don't need f/2.8. A few threads on that one too :)
 
Some of my experiences with the f/4 and the new f/2.8 II ...

70-200/4L IS:
- lightweight, reasonable cost
- sharp, decent IS
- takes 1.4x extender well (good IQ) with a hit to AF speed but 2x extender loses AF completely and IQ is seriously degraded

70-200/2.8L IS:
- heavy & costly
- very very good IQ and excellent IS
- takes 1.4x beautifully, 2x gives still decent IQ in good light. AF is very good with the 1.4x but takes a big hit with the 2x (less of a hit on my 5D3 though). In low light the contras seems to suffer quite a bit with the 2x.
- Most cameras have cross-type AF sensors that require f/2.8 or faster lenses. AF will be more accurate in any light and faster in low light.
- Obviously lets in a whole stop more light and offers shallower DoF for portraits.

I also get the feeling you really want to have 400mm available.. if this is the case, the f/4 is a non-starter in my opinion while the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x gives the 100-400 a run for its money. Then again, if you need a 400mm lens, buy a 400mm lens ;)
 
That was useful.

@Hoppyuk: right i am considering 70-300 L as well since i dont want to be challenged in terms focallength. That way i could use 1.4 tc on 300 and get upto 420 :). 2x tc hampers the IQ on any lens i guess. Btw whats IMHO? :)

@Vaizki:
Thanks. So that means 70-200 2.8 can handle 2x tc pretty decently.

So whats opinion on using 1.4tc on 70-300 L? I guess it would be a good compromise !?!

Thanks
Naveen
 
naveen.nag said:
...So whats opinion on using 1.4tc on 70-300 L? I guess it would be a good compromise !?!
Click to expand...

The only converter you can use on the 70-300L is the Kenko Pro 300DGX... The Canon ones won't work. Image quality with the 1.4x is excellent though! :)
 
The 70-300L unfortunately does not work with canon extenders. It will "work" with Kenko/Sigma extenders but I would imagine that AF would be pretty bad.
 
naveen.nag said:
That was useful.

@Hoppyuk: right i am considering 70-300 L as well since i dont want to be challenged in terms focallength. That way i could use 1.4 tc on 300 and get upto 420 :). 2x tc hampers the IQ on any lens i guess. Btw whats IMHO? :)

@Vaizki:
Thanks. So that means 70-200 2.8 can handle 2x tc pretty decently.

So whats opinion on using 1.4tc on 70-300 L? I guess it would be a good compromise !?!

Thanks
Naveen
Click to expand...

Apart from the fitting issues, you lose auto-focus when the f/number goes above f/5.6, and 1.4x takes you to f/8 on the 70-300L.

BTW, FWIW and FYI, IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
 
naveen.nag said:
How about the AF with the kenko pro DGX ?
Click to expand...

It cannot change the f/number.

You can try and fool the camera by putting tape over the pins so it doesn't know it's really at f/8, but sometimes that doesn't work at all or sometimes it might work in some conditions, but badly.

The problem is the physical diameter of the aperture as seen by the lens is reduced. Phase-detect AF works by comparing images from either side of the lens and needs good separation.
 
HoppyUK said:
It cannot change the f/number...
Click to expand...

Actually Richard, it does! :D

When I mounted that converter to my 70-300 L, the camera read the aperture as being f/8.

It also works perfectly well on my 70-200mm f/2.8 II.
 
Spiritflier said:
Actually Richard, it does! :D

When I mounted that converter to my 70-300 L, the camera read the aperture as being f/8.

It also works perfectly well on my 70-200mm f/2.8 II.
Click to expand...

What I mean is, the extender changes the f/number physically, regardless of which brand it is or what is reported to the camera.

Different cameras react differently, and unpredictably. For example, my old 350D with 100-400L would attempt to AF with a 1.4x Kenko with the pins taped, and was mostly successful, if slow and unreliable. But same combo on a 40D would not work at all - the lens just shunted back and forth endlessly. Others have reported similar.

Basically, the Canon AF system is not designed to work at apertures higher than f/5.6 (except on a couple of 1D models). Sometimes you get lucky, but it's never very good, especially for servo tracking.
 
I've got a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x and it's fantastic. I've used it with all of my lenses and it works flawlessly. I tried it on my 70-200 2.8 IS L MkII the other day and was very impressed with the AF speed and the IQ, and it reports all the correct settings in the EXIF without having to tape any pins. I had my Canon 100-400 L auto focussing very well on a 550D, 60D, 7D and 5D2 even though it reported as f8. It only started hunting when the light got really bad, but under normal daylight conditions it worked, was very accurate and none too slow either, and the 1.4x didn't impact too badly on IQ either.

I got a Canon 2x MkIII the other day and I'm very impressed with that on the 70-200 MkII as well. Some of the bird shots I took are fantastic, better than my Canon 100-400 IS L that I had. I can't use it on any of my other lenses unfortunately (would of been nice to bolt it on my Sigma 150-500 on my 60D for some moon shots at 1600mm equivalent) but it was bought for the 70-200 specifically so I don't have to keep nicking the wifes Sigma 120-400 OS.
 
Last edited:
Since I've got a pile of extenders here ATM (for a magazine review) and a some 70-200 lenses, I've just tried a few. Lens is a 70-200L f/4 IS, which is of course 400mm f/8 with a 2x extender, which shouldn't AF.

Canon 2x Mk3, viewfinder reads f/8, AF switches off completely, ditto Sigma 2x. With Kenko 2x DGX, f/8 also reported in viewfinder, but AF works. It's not very good - noticeably slow, and won't even try with anything significantly out of focus, or with less than good contrast. But it does work. I'm assuming the Canon and Sigma would do the same if I taped the pins.

Tried them all on both 5D2 and 5D3 bodies, same result. Unfortunately I don't have a 70-300L here at the mo.
 
the L glass is excellent
if you want to leave your options open (and spend less money) I have the sigma option which does everything but not quite as well, and much cheaper
takes a nice 2x TC also
 
naveen.nag said:
@Vaizki:
Thanks. So that means 70-200 2.8 can handle 2x tc pretty decently.

So whats opinion on using 1.4tc on 70-300 L? I guess it would be a good compromise !?!
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that I think he's on about the f/2.8 IS II, which is a totally different kettle of fish to the f/2.8 IS or f/2.8, being significantly sharper and taking extenders better.

FWIW, I "upgraded" from an f/4 IS to an f/2.8 IS and "downgraded" back again shortly afterward as the f/2.8 just wasn't as sharp. Examples vary and I believe the f/2.8 non-IS is generally sharper than the f/2.8 but neither of them are as sharp as the f/4 or f/4 IS, even at f/4.

I didn't need the extra stop enough to warrant the reduction in quality basically, but each person's priorities will be different. I'll be hanging onto my f/4 IS until I can afford the f2.8 IS II :)
 
I love my f4...afraid thats about all I can say on the issue as I dont own a f2.8...

I guess...like most people have said...it depends on if you need it...and if you can afford it...

STEVIER
 
I borrowed a friend's EF2x MKIII yesterday to try with my 70-200 f/2.8 L II to see just how good it was. The test wasn't exactly scientific but it was good enough for my purposes. I also had a 100-400 for comparison...

I shot at a bright, flat, colourful, contrasty surface with the camera mounted on a tripod. The IS on both lenses was switched off and I used ISO 50 and a manual exposure. The camera also had mirror lock-up enabled. The first shot was at f/5.6 and the second was at f/8 with both lenses.

I found the result quite surprising given that TC's generally mess with IQ somewhat but the 70-200/2x combination was as sharp and about a third of a stop brighter than the image from the 100-400mm. :thumbs:
 
Vertigo1 said:
Bear in mind that I think he's on about the f/2.8 IS II, which is a totally different kettle of fish to the f/2.8 IS or f/2.8, being significantly sharper and taking extenders better.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I did mention f/2.8 II but forgot it from the comparison heading - sorry. The II version is what I have and just like you I couldn't let the f/4 IS go for the old version of the f/2.8.
 
vaizki said:
Indeed. I did mention f/2.8 II but forgot it from the comparison heading - sorry. The II version is what I have and just like you I couldn't let the f/4 IS go for the old version of the f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Haha, I did let mine go and regretted it. Actually managed to get my original f/4 IS back about 8 months later though! :)
 
I have the same set up as you, was thinking about buying a 70-200 2.8 non IS from the classifieds, have been in two minds whether to go for the IS ii or simple non IS. I will only use it as a hobby, taking pictures now and then, sometimes in doors. I turned the IS off on my 24-105 to see what difference it made, although, I'm guessing it would be a different story to the 70-200.
 
I've just sold a 70-200 f4 non IS for a f2.8 MkII IS

IQ on the 2.8 is brilliant. IS very very good. Build quality fantastic. Better that the f4. Always had the opinion that I didn't need a 2.8 just push the iso a stop similarly with the IS, just increase the ISO to get a faster shutter speed.

Photographing ospreys recently in poor light made me think again and I know own the 2.8

Expensive but worth it IMHO £1599 from flashcamera.co.uk
 
I used to have the 2.8 IS mk1 and the f4 IS.
I got rid of the f2.8 as it was for me too heavy, to conspicuous and I didn't feel the extra stop was worth it for my use - mainly kids.
I have just got a f2.8 IS mk2 and will be selling my f4 soon - it is an amazing lens and the weight is something I'll need to adjust to.
My first few shots have been hand-held inside at 1/15th or 1/30th and almost all are sharp - on the f4 I couldn't rely on getting sharp shots at those speeds despite it being lighter.
My Canon 1.4 mk2 teleconverter works very well on the f4 - not tried it on my new lens yet.
As Gaz J says, expensive but worth it, for me !
 
stevewestern said:
I used to have the 2.8 IS mk1 and the f4 IS.
I got rid of the f2.8 as it was for me too heavy, to conspicuous and I didn't feel the extra stop was worth it for my use - mainly kids.
I have just got a f2.8 IS mk2 and will be selling my f4 soon - it is an amazing lens and the weight is something I'll need to adjust to.
My first few shots have been hand-held inside at 1/15th or 1/30th and almost all are sharp - on the f4 I couldn't rely on getting sharp shots at those speeds despite it being lighter.
My Canon 1.4 mk2 teleconverter works very well on the f4 - not tried it on my new lens yet.
As Gaz J says, expensive but worth it, for me !
Click to expand...

I did not know it was possible to handhold a 70-200 IS II at 1/15th, if that's the case, then I think I will have to save up for one, just give me a few years. ;)
 
stevewestern said:
I used to have the 2.8 IS mk1 and the f4 IS.
I got rid of the f2.8 as it was for me too heavy, to conspicuous and I didn't feel the extra stop was worth it for my use - mainly kids.
I have just got a f2.8 IS mk2 and will be selling my f4 soon - it is an amazing lens and the weight is something I'll need to adjust to.
My first few shots have been hand-held inside at 1/15th or 1/30th and almost all are sharp - on the f4 I couldn't rely on getting sharp shots at those speeds despite it being lighter.
My Canon 1.4 mk2 teleconverter works very well on the f4 - not tried it on my new lens yet.
As Gaz J says, expensive but worth it, for me !
Click to expand...

That's bizarre, don't the F4 IS and F2.8IS II have the same stabiliser in them?
 
I believe the mk2 has 4 stops of IS and was re-worked to be an improvement over the IS on the f4 - that said I may well be proven wrong as I cannot find anything to prove that in a quick google...
However, I still stand by my statement that I have got more sharp shots with the f2.8 than the f4 at the same shutter speeds !
I'll try to post up a couple of shots later.
 
They are both 4 stops but for some reason the 2.8 seems quieter in operation so maybe they have changed something although you would think 4 stops would be just that.

You cannot actually hear the IS on my copy of the 2.8 just a click as it starts and another as it stops.
 
Just a quick shot but hand held, no processing bar a resize.
1/13th of a second though !


70-200f2_8_13th_sec.jpg
 
stevewestern said:
Just a quick shot but hand held, no processing bar a resize.
1/13th of a second though !
Click to expand...

Lovely, 1/13th! Don't think I could get that on a 24-105 and that is shorter, will have to try.
 
I have just got my f2.8 today and have taken a dozen or so action shots of my dogs at about 6.30pm. I must admit to be blown away by the lens already the focusing is very quick and the image quality superb. I am going to love this lens. I sold my f/4 a while back for no other reason than to purchase another lens but that too was incredibly sharp and obviously a lot lighter. I am now used to heavy lenses having got the 100-400 too and the f2.8 seems fine to me weight wise lighter than the 100-400, the image quality is just fantastic though. Comparing the f4 and f2.8 for what I want i have no hesitation in recommending the 2.8, its in a different class, fast and sharp, superb action lens and the wide aperture is so worth it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top