Canon 70-200 2.8 vs. 4
boulderNardo
Registered Users Posts: 180 Major grins
I tried a search about this, but forum searches are notoriously useless (or I s*ck 
). I used to own a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, had to sell it to replace a damaged camera body. I loved that lens, never got it to be TACK sharp (maybe my fault, maybe the lens'), but loved it nonetheless. I want that range back.
Sooooo, my question is. Is there ANY difference whatsoever in IQ and sharpness between the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses (both non-IS)? Either at wide open or closed down (f/4 vs. f/2.8, f/4 vs. f/4, f/5.6 vs. f/5.6)?
I'd be using the lens primarily for outdoors sports photography and technically don't need the f/2.8, only looking for the best possible IQ & sharpness.
_Bernardo
). I used to own a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, had to sell it to replace a damaged camera body. I loved that lens, never got it to be TACK sharp (maybe my fault, maybe the lens'), but loved it nonetheless. I want that range back.Sooooo, my question is. Is there ANY difference whatsoever in IQ and sharpness between the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses (both non-IS)? Either at wide open or closed down (f/4 vs. f/2.8, f/4 vs. f/4, f/5.6 vs. f/5.6)?
I'd be using the lens primarily for outdoors sports photography and technically don't need the f/2.8, only looking for the best possible IQ & sharpness.
_Bernardo
Canon 1D MkII, Canon 17-40 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L, Canon 50 f/1.4, Canon 100 f/2
Bogen 055XPROB
Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS, FreeLite A, Skyports, 3x Vivitar 285HV
Bogen 055XPROB
Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS, FreeLite A, Skyports, 3x Vivitar 285HV
0
Comments
The other option would be to get a Canon 200 f/2.8 MkII for about the same price as the 70-200 f/4. I imagine the prime lens to be SIGNIFICANTLY sharper and to have much better IQ than either of the two others.
-B
Bogen 055XPROB
Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS, FreeLite A, Skyports, 3x Vivitar 285HV
70-200mm/4.0 L IS > 70-200mm/2.8 L > 70-200mm/2.8 L IS > 70-200mm/4.0 L
The Canon 200mm/2.8 L II is softer at f2.8 than the 70-200mm/4.0 L IS at
f4 but it is as sharp at f4 and visibly sharper with a 2x TC than any of the
70-200mm lenses with a 2x TC.
Altough I loved my 70-200mm/2.8 L lens, I eventualy sold it because
of the weight. I already tried the 70-200mm/4.0 L IS and will order it
as soon as my wallet has recovered from the purcheas of the Canon 5D Mark II.
Imo the f4 version handles just so much nicer (weight, IS).
― Edward Weston
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM
I think, and others disagree, that the f2.8 is marginally faster to focus than the f4.
The f2.8 aperture is also "required" by some Canon cameras in order to active the high-precision focus mode present in some Canon AF sensors.
If you ever need to shoot nighttime or indoor sports there is no contest; get the f2.8, either version.
If you will only shoot daytime sports, almost any of the EF 70-200mm zooms will do the job.
The f2.8 zooms will support AF using either a 2x or 1.4x teleconverter. The f4 zooms will support AF using only the 1.4x teleconverter (which is the most I recommend with any of the 70-200 zooms).
The f4, 70-200mm zoom is a permanent lens in my travel kit, but I will replace it with the f2.8 if I know I need to shoot indoors (sports or not).
All of these lenses are very sharp at f4, although they are sharpest at f5.6. The f2.8 is very usable with simpler subjects and USM sharpening.
I do not recommend IS for sports. (The IS system takes a while to "settle" and become fully active. In active sports shots too much can happen before the IS settles.) I prefer an HD tripod with a video fluid head to support a long telephoto lens.
The f2.8 versions include a tripod ring. The tripod ring is optional/extra on the f4 versions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The question is: is the 200mm f/2.8L II softer at 2.8 than the 70-200 at 2.8?
I continue to have a love-hate relationship with the 70-200 lens, both 2.8 IS and 4 IS. I don't know why. Maybe I'm not the telephoto zoom type?
Compare:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=245&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Camera=9
200mm/2.8 L II: "best image quality at 200mm"
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
But if you need IS and the versatility of a zoom the 70-200 still wins imo.
― Edward Weston
Partly too is how you use the lens and for what application.
I found that in American football I would follow the action with the (70-200) zoom wide. Then, when I saw something developing in the viewfinder, I would adjust the zoom to frame the shot, all while tracking the action.
With a fixed focal length lens I'm afraid it would have to revert to more "looking over the top" technique, or shooting portrait and using both eyes. I think it would complicate the process considerably.
Shooting wildlife is somewhat similar in approach, staying fairly wide until the action moves into the open and then zoom to frame the shot.
Shooting landscapes and portraiture would be fine with the fixed focal length lens since there is no need for tracking the subject with a wider FOV.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you are going by the comparison shots from the first link it would be helpful if the 70-200 was set at 200mm not 70mm. When both lenses are at 200 mm's the 200 f2.8 is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm. Which is the same from my experience as I own both.
― Edward Weston
That was the first thing I did upon clicking that link. Thanks guys. On a tripod, I love the 70-200. I'm less impressed handheld, even with IS. Don't know what it is.
Okay I have a feeling I know. I'm often tracking people, particularly children. I might have a newfound respect for the 70-200 if I saw it work with a better-suited AF than the 5D provides.
Sooo. I had decided to go for the f/4 and purchased a used copy on Saturday THEN, found a crazy deal on a f/2.8 this morning and purchased that one, too
I'll test both as soon as I get them, do some comparison shots, both in a 'lab' environment and in the field, and decide which one to keep.
Paid $550 for the f/4 with tripod ring, paid $650 for the f/2.8 (with tripod ring, too). Seems almost like a no-brainer at this point.
I eliminated the prime 200mm just because I realize I *REALLY* need the zoom capability for the type of shooting I do (ski action photography mostly. I pick a spot based on skier's trajectory and the composition I want, a prime lens would limit me incredibly)
Thanks for all the input,
_Bernardo
Bogen 055XPROB
Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS, FreeLite A, Skyports, 3x Vivitar 285HV