Performance between 70-200mm f/4 and f/2.8

robscomputer

Hi,

I'm trying to decide upon two different lens for wildlife and sports use. In the past I have used a 100-300mm f/5.6 lens on my film camera and the performance was slow. I don't think the lens was USM but it was hard to focus on moving objects such as in a auto race.

Would moving towards the f/4 be a huge improvment over the 100-300mm f/5.6 lens? Or should I spend the extra money and go with the f/2.8? The f/2.8 is almost 3 times more then the f/4.

I'm aiming for the best mix of performance/value between the two lens.

Thanks,
Rob

Andy

have you considered the 200L f/2.8 prime? a huge value, extremely sharp glass, really fast. great price, esp now with the rebate. and you can put a 1.4x on it and still be at f/4

robscomputer wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to decide upon two different lens for wildlife and sports use. In the past I have used a 100-300mm f/5.6 lens on my film camera and the performance was slow. I don't think the lens was USM but it was hard to focus on moving objects such as in a auto race.

Would moving towards the f/4 be a huge improvment over the 100-300mm f/5.6 lens? Or should I spend the extra money and go with the f/2.8? The f/2.8 is almost 3 times more then the f/4.

I'm aiming for the best mix of performance/value between the two lens.

Thanks,
Rob

ubergeek

Prime vs. Zoom
Andy's got a good point. Funny thing about telephoto zooms--seems they're very often used at their maximum focal length. If that would be true in your case, why not get a cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter prime?

Also, as the 70-200mm's go, it's not fair to compare the non-IS f/4 ($550) to the IS version of the f/2.8 ($1650). A closer comparison would be the non-IS f/2.8 ($1100). Of course the 200mm f/2.8, at $630, compares favorably with all of them.

Of course, if you know you'd be putting the zoom range of the 70-200 to use, then you've got three (Canon) versions to choose from--make your IS and aperture choices, and then pay the piper accordingly.

Cheers,
Jeremy

robscomputer

This site is great, I'm learning new things everyday!

Andy and Jeremy,

Thanks for pointing out the 200mm f/2.8, I really skip over the prime lens since I like to have the ability of zoom but this is a real bargin.

Yes, I do think with my other zoom telephotos I have kept them at maximum zoom and a 200mm prime might fit better with my photography than a slower zoom.

As a bonus I can now afford both the 17-40mm L f/4 and the 200mm f/2.8 after selling my older lens.

Rob

Khaos

robscomputer wrote:

This site is great, I'm learning new things everyday!

....a 200mm prime might fit better with my photography than a slower zoom.



Rob

I agree with Andy, but don't think the 70-200 2.8 IS L is slow. It's not. Heavy, yes, expensive, yes, slow, no. Also, I don't see any softness at 200. I've lately been going prime, and right now, the only thing holding me back from getting the 135 2.0 and the 200 2.8 and selling the 70-200 is how many great shots I've gotten from it and the great ease of range I get with it.

But in the end, it's what you will be shooting and how you'll be shooting. It sounds like the 200 2.8 is a better fit for you. Either way, you get quality glass.

robscomputer

Khaos wrote:

I agree with Andy, but don't think the 70-200 2.8 IS L is slow. It's not. Heavy, yes, expensive, yes, slow, no. Also, I don't see any softness at 200. I've lately been going prime, and right now, the only thing holding me back from getting the 135 2.0 and the 200 2.8 and selling the 70-200 is how many great shots I've gotten from it and the great ease of range I get with it.

But in the end, it's what you will be shooting and how you'll be shooting. It sounds like the 200 2.8 is a better fit for you. Either way, you get quality glass.

I might have written the past posting in a hurry and failed to type clearly. I was actually referring to the 70-200mm f/4 lens compared with the performance of the 200mm f/2.8 lens. Since they are both in the same pricing category I would like to buy the 200mm f/2.8 for the overall faster lens and lower pricing than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens.



The zoom factor on the 70-200mm is nice but as Jeremy posted, I tend to keep the lens at max zoom most of the time.



Thanks,

Rob

DavidTO

I have the 70-200f4L, and I would not want to upgrade to the 2.8 IS version. It's heavy, 3x the cost, and unless you're a pro, just not worth it, IMO. I love my f4 zoom. I could see getting a couple of primes to replace it, but I just can't see putting up with the extra weight of the 2.8.

robscomputer

DavidTO wrote:

I have the 70-200f4L, and I would not want to upgrade to the 2.8 IS version. It's heavy, 3x the cost, and unless you're a pro, just not worth it, IMO. I love my f4 zoom. I could see getting a couple of primes to replace it, but I just can't see putting up with the extra weight of the 2.8.

Excellent points, I do intend to carry my gear to sporting events and the very hilly Laguna Seca. After a few trips to the corkscrew and back I would have traded my SLR in for a point n' shoot.

Have you compared the f/4 to faster zooms such as the f/2.8 and others?

Rob

mercphoto

robscomputer wrote:

Excellent points, I do intend to carry my gear to sporting events and the very hilly Laguna Seca. After a few trips to the corkscrew and back I would have traded my SLR in for a point n' shoot.

I have the 70-200/2.8/IS and it can get a bit heavy, but I have gotten used to it. Don't even bother with a monopod. I "need" the 2.8 for its faster auto-focus and the image stabilization mode 2 is very nice. Plus there were times last year at football when I actually needed f/2.8 to get a fast enough shutter in failing light. Now, NEEDING and being able to JUSTIFY with sales has been a different story!

The f/4 is sweet glass, for sure. If you can get buy without IS and won't be photographing in poor light, save the bucks. Or, get the 200/2.8L prime instead.

USAIR

Rob

robscomputer wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to decide upon two different lens for wildlife and sports use. In the past I have used a 100-300mm f/5.6 lens on my film camera and the performance was slow. I don't think the lens was USM but it was hard to focus on moving objects such as in a auto race.

Would moving towards the f/4 be a huge improvment over the 100-300mm f/5.6 lens? Or should I spend the extra money and go with the f/2.8? The f/2.8 is almost 3 times more then the f/4.

I'm aiming for the best mix of performance/value between the two lens.

Thanks,
Rob

Well I have the 70-200 IS f2.8L and for me it's great and it's not that heavy
If your doing wildlife and sports then I think Andy is correct 200 prime is what you need.
It might actually be a little short for you.

Fred