Canon, 2.8L versus 4.0L

mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
edited June 14, 2004 in Accessories
The Canon 70-200mm -- two versions. 2.8L and 4.0L. Big difference in price. For the type of shots I take with a lens like that I almost never shoot under f/8. So is it worth getting the faster lens? Is there any image quality difference?

Thanks, Bill.
Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu

Comments

  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2004
    I have the f4 on loan from a friend who upgraded to the 2.8 IS L glass.

    I may buy it from her.

    Just wanted to point out that the other big diff besides price is weight, and the Image Stabilization. The f4 is already pretty big. The 2.8 is heavier. BUT it has IS.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2004
    Thanks
    Thanks for the reply. The weight/size might push me to the 4.0L. I just bought a 24-70 2.8L which I will return. Partly it is too large and heavy. Partly I'm finding I'm not good at the shots I want that lens for. Will buy a cheaper, smaller 50mm 1.4 prime instead. That lens I can justify.

    And for IS, not sure I want it. I have IS on my 75-300. Almost never use it. I find I am much better at, and enjoy much more, action shots, and I don't like using IS for that. But I've used the 70-200 4.0L before, and it does take better shots than my 75-300. And I'm already starting to sell the action shots I take with that lens. So, may be worth the upgrade.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2004
    Have you checked out the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com/ ? They can be very helpful. Basic registration is free, I believe.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2004
    I have the f4L and love it. 1/3 the price (and weight) of the f2.8 and you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. I don't miss the speed difference and I certainly don't miss the weight. IS would be nice, but bumping it up to ISO400 works pretty well. It's an outstanding portrait lens, btw. Shooting at f4 you blur the background beautifully. It also works nicely with a 1.4x multiplier.

    4075361-M.jpg

    3754287-M.jpg
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited June 13, 2004
    i just sold my 70-200L f/2.8 i.s. ... i loved the lens, but i dont' get that much use out of it. i'm getting in it's place the 16-35L f/2.8

    ;-)
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited June 14, 2004
    I gotta say I love the 70-200 2.8 IS. Cures my shakes and great blur.

    5131635-L.jpg

    4817315-M.jpg
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sign In or Register to comment.