Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?

joshhuntnm

I read somewhere here that the f/4 is actually clearer than the f/2.8. Is that right?

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

I read somewhere here that the f/4 is actually clearer than the f/2.8. Is that right?

I have both an EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and an EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM and at f4 they are similar enough that I could never tell them apart by their images.

Wide open the f2.8 is softer, but it's an f2.8.

If you want to compare actual ISO resolution images, go to:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

Note that there is a slight difference in exposure that makes the f4 look sharper than the f2.8 set to f4. In practice I find them almost identical.

Both are truly excellent zoom lenses and I am very fortunate to have both.

I use the f2.8 for those indoor and low-light images where the extra stop is worth the extra weight of the lens. The f4 is a part of my travel kit except when I know I must have the f2.8.

Also check out the reviews here (I linked to the 2 - "IS" versions as that's what most people want to compare):

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/199-canon-ef-70-200mm-f28-usm-l-is-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review

iotashan

ziggy53 wrote:

I have both an EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and an EF 70-200mm

Can I have one? They're effectively identical at f4

joshhuntnm

ditto on the "can I have one"

do you have the 100 - 400? What comments do you have about it?

iotashan

Ok, serious question now. With the 5D II's super-high ISO capabilities, what is everyone's opinion on paring it with a f4 or f2.8? Sure, the 2.8 would be more or less night vision on that camera, but doesn't that mean the f4 could become an indoor hand-held lens?

I always figured I'd have to get a 2.8 when my daughter started to do things like sports, band or theatre, but I guess the new bodies make things interesting.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

ditto on the "can I have one"

do you have the 100 - 400? What comments do you have about it?

I bought the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm instead of the Canon 100-400mm as it seemed a better match for my needs. Eventually I will probably get an EF 400mm, f5.6L USM for traveling a little lighter.

ziggy53

iotashan wrote:

Ok, serious question now. With the 5D II's super-high ISO capabilities, what is everyone's opinion on paring it with a f4 or f2.8? Sure, the 2.8 would be more or less night vision on that camera, but doesn't that mean the f4 could become an indoor hand-held lens?

I always figured I'd have to get a 2.8 when my daughter started to do things like sports, band or theatre, but I guess the new bodies make things interesting.

The Canon 5D MKII AF section is going to work better with the f2.8 because the autofocus is not too great in low light. Granted, it's not bad but the f2.8 version lets in twice the light and has a narrower DOF wide open than the f4 and the 5D MKII has the center AF optimized for f2.8 or larger lenses.

In good light with high contrast subjects they should both be good, but when the light gets low or you need to deal with low contrast subjects or rounded and smooth subjects the f2.8 will perform much better.

The AF section of the 1Ds MKIII is more sensitive and would probably work better with the f4 version indoors, but even it woild potentially do better with the f2.8 just because of the lesser DOF of the f2.8 lens, which allows better and more accurate AF selection.

With slow moving objects or stationary objects you can use the live-view feature of the 5D MKII and achieve highly accurate manual focus.

With the Canon 5D MKII and indoor sports, theater, choir, band, etc. I would recommend the f2.8 version for best results.

Pindy

I have owned all of the 70-200 models except the f/2.8 non-IS. All were very impressive in their performance when I did my job right. I sold them and, in retrospect, regret selling the f/4 IS most of all, for it's weight and size and slightly better IS. I think unless you're getting paid, the f/2.8 is way too large to carry around for the relatively modest reach you get.

Zanotti

I have had both as well. An f4 w/o IS and a f2.8 with IS.

Both work extremely well in good light/sunlight

Both are fast to focus, sharp wide open and outstanding lenses.

I bought the 2.8 for poorly lit night HS football games and sold the f4 because its a lot of money to keep both.

If I had both still today, I might just sell the 2.8 because the 4 is just easy to shoot, carry, and is less imposing to others. The f2.8 is heavy and a bit cumbersom.

I used both on a Canon 30D and was quite pleased. I also have a 1.4X converter that worked slightly better on the 2.8.

I cant see how you would go wrong with either - if its at all a matter of money - go with the f4 even w/o IS and you will be happy.


Z

David_S85

In a nutshell, if you really really need the low light capabilities of the 2.8, get that one.

I borrowed the 2.8 for about a month. Great lens, but a little heavy to be carrying around. Larger around too; I wasn't comfortable hauling it a few hours at a time.

I later bought the f/4. It's lighter, I can't tell the difference in focusing speed, works OK in low light, is a sharper lens than the 2.8, has better weather sealing at the back of the lens. And its lots less money. The 1.4x TC works good too in combination.

Downsides of the 4 is a (much) poorer carying case, and doesn't come with a tripod mount ring ($150 extra).

But if weight/bulk and price isn't an issue, you really can't go wrong with either.

Richard

David_S85 wrote:

Downsides of the 4 is a (much) poorer carying case, and doesn't come with a tripod mount ring ($150 extra).

I use the f/4 (non IS) and a good ball head and have never seen the need for the mount ring. It's not a very heavy lens.

bhowdy

I have owned both the f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS lenses. I still have the f/4, it suits my needs better as I do not shoot much in low light. Both are excellent zooms, very sharp.

I believe that some folks get the f/2.8 as much for status as any other reason, when if they analyzed their needs the f/4 would be perfect for them. The f/4 is much lighter and easier to hand hold and carry for extended periods of time.

I also own the 100-400 lens, which I use a good bit. The lens is an acquired taste, but if you like it, you really like it! (I do) It is capable of great images, but as is always reported it needs lots of light. The 100-400 is very capable of excellent bird in flight photos and is convenient to have for the zoom capabilities. I have found that the lens does not take well to teleconvertors. Even by taping pins it is slow to auto focus and the images soften up quite a bit.

Note: We are fortunate to have Ziggy around here ... his advice and opinion are always helpful, considerate and of value. Thanks Ziggy!

Pindy

bhowdy wrote:

Note: We are fortunate to have Ziggy around here ... his advice and opinion are always helpful, considerate and of value. Thanks Ziggy!

+900 The voice of reason.