I have canon 70-200 2.8 L CONSIDERING f4 version

Cowboydoug

Howdy gang,

I'd like some opinions on a lens exchange I am considering. I currently have a Canon 70-200 2.8L lens and I am considering switching to the Canon 70-200 f4L lens.
Now you might be asking yourself WHY? ...well that's a good question and it's why I am writing this silly... :wink
Seriously though-
I primarily shoot portraits and candid portraits with my 70-200 2.8 - I suppose I am looking for someone who has shot both lenses, who can give me their spin on it.
Growing up in photography I spent 20+ of my 30+ years shooting with large or medium formats and still find myself trying to embraced the TINY 35mm world... How do you see through those tiny viewfinders...:dunno :rofl

My POINT... I am used to shooting portraits at apertures of 5.6 or 8 anyway...so what's the big dealio with 2.8 in my case?

I should add... even though I am a pro and photography is how I make my living, this lens has only been on my camera maybe 3 times in the past 2 years. (I have been on a bit of a hiatus) :barb
I am one of those photographers who rarely takes his camera out of the bag unless there is a $ sign attached to it, not even to play with. (I'm trying to change)...:thumb

Please let me hear your spin...
thanks

ThatCanonGuy

The f/2.8 (and the blurred background and more light it gives you) is pretty much the only advantage of the f/2.8 version. The f4 is lighter and easier to carry. From what I've heard, image quality is about the same. So, if you're used to shooting portraits at f/5.6 or smaller, AND if you have plenty of light (enough that you can shoot at f4 and maintain a reasonable shutter speed) then I'd say the f4 version is better. With the f/2.8, you get the blurred background and more light of f/2.8, and with the f4, you get a smaller and lighter lens. So if you're not taking advantage of the f2.8's f/2.8, then the f4 is for you

Me? I own the f4. It's great, but sometimes I wish I had the f/2.8. I want that blurred background and more light. But I can't decide if it's worth the bulk and heaviness of the f/2.8.

Tell ya what, I'll trade my f4 for your 2.8... I'll even throw in a free Opteka tripod ring! Heck, I'll throw in a 28-105 USM, absolutely free!

Zanotti

I have had both, going from the non IS f4 to the IS f2.8.

I was shooting a lot at night and thought I needed the extra stop of light and the abaility to blur the background.

IF I hd it to do again, I would have just kept the f4 and saved the money. The f2.8 is quite expensive and the non IS relatively cheap, so it is a big delta to really want IS and f stops.

Also, the f4 is quite a bit lighter and smaller - easier to handle and fewer of those "my what a big lens you have" comments.

Quality of both in the photo department is equal - perhaps impossible to tell, esp at f5.6 or f8.

I have read other's reviews and their comments are similar. Its pure inertia that keeps me from just swapping back.

Z

ThatCanonGuy

Zanotti wrote: »

I have had both, going from the non IS f4 to the IS f2.8.

I was shooting a lot at night and thought I needed the extra stop of light and the abaility to blur the background.

IF I hd it to do again, I would have just kept the f4 and saved the money. The f2.8 is quite expensive and the non IS relatively cheap, so it is a big delta to really want IS and f stops.

Also, the f4 is quite a bit lighter and smaller - easier to handle and fewer of those "my what a big lens you have" comments.

Quality of both in the photo department is equal - perhaps impossible to tell, esp at f5.6 or f8.

I have read other's reviews and their comments are similar. Its pure inertia that keeps me from just swapping back.

Z

If you just want IS, you can get the f4 IS version for around $1000. If you only want f/2.8, you can get the 2.8 non-IS version for about $1000. Yes, there are four versions--actually five, with the 2.8 IS Mark II.

Photoskipper

Cowboydoug wrote: »

Howdy gang,

I'd like some opinions on a lens exchange I am considering. I currently have a Canon 70-200 2.8L lens and I am considering switching to the Canon 70-200 f4L lens.
Now you might be asking yourself WHY? ...well that's a good question and it's why I am writing this silly...
Seriously though-
I primarily shoot portraits and candid portraits with my 70-200 2.8 - I suppose I am looking for someone who has shot both lenses, who can give me their spin on it.
Growing up in photography I spent 20+ of my 30+ years shooting with large or medium formats and still find myself trying to embraced the TINY 35mm world... How do you see through those tiny viewfinders...

My POINT... I am used to shooting portraits at apertures of 5.6 or 8 anyway...so what's the big dealio with 2.8 in my case?

I should add... even though I am a pro and photography is how I make my living, this lens has only been on my camera maybe 3 times in the past 2 years. (I have been on a bit of a hiatus)
I am one of those photographers who rarely takes his camera out of the bag unless there is a $ sign attached to it, not even to play with. (I'm trying to change)...

Please let me hear your spin...
thanks

I have the similar idea for years. I own the F2.8 IS version for 5 years and very happy with the results. It serves multiple purpose for me - F2.8 gives great portrait, add a 2X becomes 140-400 F5.6 still have auto-focus for birds, add the 25mm macro ring become a 200 mm macro for little bugs. Excellent for overseas trips.

The only problem is its size and weight. I need the backpack or the big Lowepro Toploading lens case and at least a monopod to bring it to the field.

May change to F4 IS when it retired.

Cowboydoug

Thanks and ...how about this next topic? Extender 2x III
Canondude & Zanotti,
Thanks for your comments...

While your offer to exchange lenses is a tempting one, I find it rather hard to
give up one letter of the Alphabet ... it's The L word... or, letter...
Now if you had a 24-105mm f4 L... we might have gotten on with it.

So how about this next topic then: Extender 2x III
According to Canon -

Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses
135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS,
EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L

Now what a stinker that is... If it will work on the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L,
then why not lenses like the 24-105L or the 28-300L?

ziggy53

To the original question, I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS) and the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. I primarily use the f4L for my travel kit but I also use it in good light when I want something lighter. The f2.8L is a major benefit indoors (mostly) and outdoors for portraiture.

The f2.8 activates the high-precision capabilities of the center focus dot on most Canon cameras. That is only available to lenses of maximum aperture f2.8 or faster.

The f4L is sharper at f4 than the f2.8L at f4, but not by much. The original versions of the f2.8L are a little soft wide open but still "L" territory. It responds very well to post sharpening.

The ability to collect twice the light and allow twice as fast a shutter speed can often make the difference between getting the shot and getting motion blur in less ideal lighting.

If I had to recommend between the 2 versions, I would definitely recommend the f2.8L first. I would also choose a larger aperture over IS, although the IS in either version makes a nice addition. Remember to turn off the IS when it is not needed or when it would cause image degradation.

Cowboydoug

Canon Extender 2x III ?
So how about this next topic then: Extender 2x III has anyone used this?

According to Canon -
Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses
135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS,
EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L



Now what a stinker that is... If it will work on the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L,
then why not lenses like the 24-105L or the 28-300L?

Inquiring minds want to know

Thanks

ThatCanonGuy

Cowboydoug wrote: »

Canondude & Zanotti,
Thanks for your comments...

While your offer to exchange lenses is a tempting one, I find it rather hard to
give up one letter of the Alphabet ... it's The L word... or, letter...
Now if you had a 24-105mm f4 L... we might have gotten on with it.

So how about this next topic then: Extender 2x III
According to Canon -

Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses
135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS,
EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L

Now what a stinker that is... If it will work on the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L,
then why not lenses like the 24-105L or the 28-300L?

I *think* it's because the rear element of those shorter lenses you mention extends back more than that of the telephoto lenses. I think the rear of those lenses might hit the Extender. However, some lenses that Canon says do not work, DO work. For example, I remember a user on here reporting that his 50 1.4 worked with an extender. Don't remember the exact stuff though.

As for my f4... oh yes, it's an L. It's wonderful... image quality, colors, contrast... in fact, I think the f4 and f2.8 have pretty much the same image quality.

Note the red ring:D: (this is my lens)

ziggy53

Cowboydoug wrote: »

...

So how about this next topic then: Extender 2x III
According to Canon -

Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses
135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS,
EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L

Now what a stinker that is... If it will work on the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L,
then why not lenses like the 24-105L or the 28-300L?

Do you see the black appendage on the left end of the extender as it it shown?

If the rear element of the lens is not recessed enough, the Canon extenders will strike the rear element of the lens. While some other manufacturers' extenders may fit, they may not provide appropriate optical coupling, resulting in optical aberrations and poor performance. Many zoom lenses in particular are not suited for use with "any" tele-extender. (Just because an extender mechanically fits does not mean that optical performance will be good.)

Cowboydoug

Your 28-105 USM
I was actually talking about your 28-105 USM How old is that thing anyway?

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I *think* it's because the rear element of those shorter lenses you mention extends back more than that of the telephoto lenses. I think the rear of those lenses might hit the Extender. However, some lenses that Canon says do not work, DO work. For example, I remember a user on here reporting that his 50 1.4 worked with an extender. Don't remember the exact stuff though.

As for my f4... oh yes, it's an L. It's wonderful... image quality, colors, contrast... in fact, I think the f4 and f2.8 have pretty much the same image quality.

Note the red ring:D: (this is my lens)

Cowboydoug

A Wealth of info...
Ziggy,

Thanks so much for your response.
I'm going to have to stick with my lens for now if for no other reason than the cost of my filters already purchased...
I am seriously considering the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Telephoto Zoom
But boy would I love to put an extender on that puppy, one that would communicate fully with my 5d II.

SIDEBAR: get a load of the lens image from Canons own website...wow... FUNKY...

ziggy53 wrote: »

To the original question, I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS) and the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. I primarily use the f4L for my travel kit but I also use it in good light when I want something lighter. The f2.8L is a major benefit indoors (mostly) and outdoors for portraiture.

The f2.8 activates the high-precision capabilities of the center focus dot on most Canon cameras. That is only available to lenses of maximum aperture f2.8 or faster.

The f4L is sharper at f4 than the f2.8L at f4, but not by much. The original versions of the f2.8L are a little soft wide open but still "L" territory. It responds very well to post sharpening.

The ability to collect twice the light and allow twice as fast a shutter speed can often make the difference between getting the shot and getting motion blur in less ideal lighting.

If I had to recommend between the 2 versions, I would definitely recommend the f2.8L first. I would also choose a larger aperture over IS, although the IS in either version makes a nice addition. Remember to turn off the IS when it is not needed or when it would cause image degradation.

Photoskipper

Cowboydoug wrote: »

So how about this next topic then: Extender 2x III has anyone used this?

According to Canon -
Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses
135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS,
EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L



Now what a stinker that is... If it will work on the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L,
then why not lenses like the 24-105L or the 28-300L?

Inquiring minds want to know

Thanks

The rear glass of the 24-105 is too close to the mount. The black rubber piece of the 2X extender cannot go in. It does not make sense to put an extender on the 24-105 as it is already 4X optical zoom. Or it was not designed to go with the Extensions.

Here is the sample picture of the 24-105 with the Teleplus 2x extender. It lost the auto-aperture funtion. The image IQ is not acceptable.

Cowboydoug

yuck

NeilL

The 2.8L is more lens, and I would never give up more lens for less lens! Other things being equal.

I have the 4L IS, and it is indeed very nice (not so contrasty as I would like, nor so rich colour), very handlable.

I would love to have the 2.8L IS. If like you I had the Mk1, and didn't intend getting the Mk2, I would keep it over getting the 4L.

Remember, when it comes to glass less is not more!

Neil

ThatCanonGuy

The 28-105 USM was marketed November of 1992 . It's actually not a bad lens, good build quality, acceptable image quality. As with most lenses, it's better stopped down. That was total sarcasm from me... I got the 28-105 for a bargain anyway. That's the beauty of the older lenses: they're not popular, and people price them pretty low. If you ever see an original 28-80 USM Mark I for around $50, grab it, it's a steal. I think it vignettes less than the 24-105L .

With the superzooms like the 28-300, you're losing image quality compared to other lenses. However, sometimes it's worth it to trade a bit of image quality for the ability to carry just one lens. I do think the 28-300 is the best superzoom out there, mostly because of the red ring. Why do you want the 28-300mm? If it's for the ability to carry one lens, then it may be worth it. But generally, lenses with a zoom of 3x (24-70, 70-200, etc.) are going to give the best IQ for zooms.

Zerodog

I had a guy that was shooting for me with the f4 on a 7D. It was a moto event so the subject was moving fast. I was very unimpressed with the IQ out of the f4 for action. I am sure a still subject is another matter. When I was sorting I could pick the images he shot with that lens out of his batch at a glance. His 100-400 was better by a long shot at tracking. Maybe it was just his lens?

I lust for a 28-300 or the 24-120f4 nikon lenses. I think they are a great range and would work well for me for a lot of things. Paired with VR and a D3s, they could be fine even in pretty low light. So stepping down to a "lesser" lens can be really good for some things.

Cowboydoug

Oh I got it...
Oh I got your sarcasm buddyO... and was certain that lens was an antique....lol

Yeah, I hate changing lenses... which is why I'm considering the 28-300L -
My current prime is the 17-40mm f4 L... I love that dang lens. In the exif data of my images I
find that I am constantly set between 34-36mm... the lens has a mind of its own and just goes there
I just wish I could put a 17-600mm on my camera and glue it on... ah... nice... oh and have it be fixed f2.8

I do think I will sell my 70-200 and maybe my 17-40...gotta sleep on that

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

The 28-105 USM was marketed November of 1992 . It's actually not a bad lens, good build quality, acceptable image quality. As with most lenses, it's better stopped down. That was total sarcasm from me... I got the 28-105 for a bargain anyway. That's the beauty of the older lenses: they're not popular, and people price them pretty low. If you ever see an original 28-80 USM Mark I for around $50, grab it, it's a steal. I think it vignettes less than the 24-105L .

With the superzooms like the 28-300, you're losing image quality compared to other lenses. However, sometimes it's worth it to trade a bit of image quality for the ability to carry just one lens. I do think the 28-300 is the best superzoom out there, mostly because of the red ring. Why do you want the 28-300mm? If it's for the ability to carry one lens, then it may be worth it. But generally, lenses with a zoom of 3x (24-70, 70-200, etc.) are going to give the best IQ for zooms.

ThatCanonGuy

Zerodog wrote:

I had a guy that was shooting for me with the f4 on a 7D. It was a moto event so the subject was moving fast. I was very unimpressed with the IQ out of the f4 for action. I am sure a still subject is another matter. When I was sorting I could pick the images he shot with that lens out of his batch at a glance. His 100-400 was better by a long shot at tracking. Maybe it was just his lens?

I've noticed that the Canon 100-400 seems to be a little soft compared to other L zooms. Maybe it was copy variation? Play around with this comparison:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Wide open at 100mm, the 70-200 f4 beats the 100-400. And the AF on the 70-200 is fine, I'd be fine shooting motocross with that AF.

Cowboydoug wrote:

I just wish I could put a 17-600mm on my camera and glue it on... ah... nice... oh and have it be fixed f2.8

Then you'll love this. I used to think I wanted a 10-1000 f/1.4... not after seeing that link.

Cowboydoug

In a PERFECT world we...
yeah...but In a PERFECT world we would have them....lol

Manfr3d

I keep going back and forth between the f4 and f2.8 versions.

Owned the 2.8 L non-IS, sold it for a 4.0 non-IS due to weight,
then I sold the 4.0 to get the 2.8 IS II because I believed flexibility
of IS and 2.8 outweights the weight and size of the lens. Now I
am wishing I also had the 4.0 L IS or the new 70-300 L IS for when
I want to pack light. It is horrible ...

Zerodog

Maybe what I saw was a copy variation. Maybe the 100-400 was a freak stellar performer and the f4 was not so hot or flawed.

Brett1000

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I've noticed that the Canon 100-400 seems to be a little soft compared to other L zooms. Maybe it was copy variation? Play around with this comparison:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
.

you cannot compare lens using different apertures and focal lengths, - they need to be the same!

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

ThatCanonGuy

I didn't know the settings were included in the link. I assumed people would change the settings after clicking through. Makes sense now