Options
Opinions Please - f2.8 Non IS or f/4 IS lens??
I am trying to decide which lens to buy. I am considering the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 NON IS lens and the f/4 IS version. They are both in the same price range and I expect image quality to be equal as well. My question is this.... does anyone have any experience with both lenses? If you do which one would you recommend? Is "IS" at f/4 worth the trade off of the faster f/2.8 lens? I do mostly nature/landscape photography and usually with a monopod or tripod. Occasionally I will shoot kids soccer games, but it's not my main thing. If anyone has an opinion I would like to hear it.
Thanks
Mike "Sparkz"
Thanks
Mike "Sparkz"
0
Comments
kids sports 2.8 for sure
you can use the 2.8 for everything but have the weight to carry...
f4 very limited in the sports area...and the bokeh from the 2.8 is so nice too...
If you are planning some sports, I'd lean more toward the f2.8 version.
I don't think you can go wrong with either of the lenses you are considering, you just have to pick the one that fits your priorities the best.
If sports is not a priority, get the F4IS. It's lighter and the IS adds some versatility for indoor people shots (as long as they're relatively still) or outdoor lowlight nature.
Get the 2.8 only if you're going to use it at 2.8 otherwise there's no sense in paying for something you're not going to use.
Gene
this is not entirely true......a lens that is larger also gets more grinding which usually makes it a higher end lens and usually winds up in a body of better build, including little things like internal focusing which can be a huge thing if you are going to be using gradient filters of any sort or circular polarizers, you do not want your barrel to be revolving while focusing.....lenses starting out at f4 a lot of times go into light weight non pro bodies which have the lens lengthening and shorting during focus and also the the front end revolving......I have not owned a non internal focus lens in a lot of years and would not consider one now, unless it was a dire emergency.
I own and use a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L - great lens, but very heavy to carry all day in the field. I bought my wife a Canon f4 70-200 IS. Vastly lighter, every bit as sharp as the faster version. I envy her some times when hiking in the landscape. I think Nightingale got the better deal
I would buy the f2.8 version if you plan to shoot sports, or use the f2.8 in portrait work and that probably means using a full frame camera. 200mm gets pretty long for portraits on a crop body. The Canon 70-200 f4 IS L is an internal focusing lens - it does not vary in length as it is zoomed.
Otherwise, I would stick with the f4 version. With modern cameras shooting pictures at ISO 1600 +, we usually can manage with f4, unless we are shooting sports.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Optically, f/4 is of equal, if not slightly better, performance to the 2.8. I'm glad to have the 2.8 but not for bokeh—I don't really think there's that much of a difference. One stop is one stop. It's not exactly as much of a problem-solver than I led myself to believe. I'm beginning to be one of these people who don't feel like the f/2.8 zoom is THAT much more desirable than the f/4, across any focal range. The extra money should go into resolution, CA and distortion control, and not just getting more light in. I'm rarely ever just one stop from happiness. Having acquired (and loved) the 24-105L, I have confidence in the L-series f/4 lenses, and I imagine the 17-40L is pretty fab.
What I really needed was the difference between f/4 or f/2.8 and f/1.4, for which I hope the 5DmkII fills the need. I find that the two lenses behave almost identically with respect to focus speed and accuracy, feel and IS performance, though the f/4 IS is supposed to be up to a stop better. Do I miss the f/4? I do. The 2.8's zoom ring feels more textured than the fast/smooth f/4. The 2.8 brings a certain cachet appeal but also attracts a lot more attention. Both take AWESOME pictures.
Reading this back, I think I let you in on more than you cared to know about me!
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Whichever lens you get I would suggest getting IS. I think for most people there will be times when you'd like to have it. I really like fast lenses, but you pay a price for the 2.8 for sure. If you don't need it, why pay for it? As another poster pointed out, high ISO performance is continually improving with each new generation of cameras.
Canon 350D
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L IS
580EX II
1.4x Extender
Gitzo 3531 w/ RRS BH-55 Ballhead
RRS L-Plate, quick release clamp and plates
I didn't as much mind the weight of the 2.8, but the girth was a bit much to handle for any length of time. As I don't do any low-light sports, the 2.8 was overkill.
The 4 IS is the better of all of them. Sharper, more weather sealed, and newest design; also 1/2 the weight, 2/3 the price of the 2.8, and shorter by about an inch. The 4 IS is so hand-holdable, you might not need a tripod at all in many/most situations. The 4 comes with a more basic looking lens shade (round - not petal type), and no tripod foot (~$150 extra). Probably better bokeh from the new 4 IS as the blades are now rounded.
The 4 IS is on my list before the U.S. rebates end Jan. 17th.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
As has been mentioned, you won't go wrong with any of them!
Unfortunalty I am moving and closing down my photography business so if you are in the market for a 300mm 4.0 I am selling mine. It is in excellent condition. I do have it listed on here.
Let me know.
THX and good luck!!
I want to thank each of you for your well thought out and argued responses to my question. After reading them all I decided to go with the Canon f/4 IS 70-200. I also have the 24-105 f/4 IS and love it. Who ever thought deciding on a lens would be so hard! Thanks again to everyone. I really appreciate your input. Mike "Sparkz"