Lens Question: F4 IS vs F2.8 IS

divmedic4

Hi all. I am wanting to add to my lens collection but have limitted funding to work with. I am still trying to find my niche and enjoy shooting some of everything - landscapes, people, wildlife, sports. I would really like to go with a 70-200 to compliment my 17-70 but am struggling with which version.

I am hoping the knowledgable people here can help me with my thinking for the decision. I realize it is only a 1 stop difference between the F4 and F2.8 but can be an important stop for some situations. In the 2.8 version, I am looking at the Sigma OS for $1399 because the Canon L is not in the price range right now. I have read so many great reviews of the Canon F4 IS that it got me thinking even more.

Getting to the question, if I am not doing indoor sports shooting, would I be better off picking up a used F4 along with a flash or am I missing more of the benefits of the 2.8? I appreciate any and all feedback/suggestions.

Tom

ziggy53

I use a Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM for a travel zoom in the zoom telephoto class. The weight savings and size difference are significant in that role.

For indoor sports and night sports, the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (without IS) makes a lot more sense. I also use the f2.8, non-IS for event photography, indoors and outdoors. The f2.8 aperture is also more suitable for portraiture and general photography. The f2.8 aperture activates the high-precision AF point(s) of the camera's AF system, as available.

The difference between f2.8 and f4 is twice the light and that also allows twice the shutter speed, which matters for any sort of action or camera shake.

I greatly prefer the Canon f2.8 over the Sigma version for several reasons, but mostly because I tested 2 copies of the Sigma and found them less suitable for sports and events. Specifically the Sigmas lacked the sharpness and speed of the Canon version. Make no mistake, the Sigmas are good, but the Canons are better.

divmedic4

Thank you Ziggy that is exactly the type of response I was/am hoping for. I have read your thread on the Sigma so I went ahead and rented one. Luckily I didn't have the issues you ran in to with both copies but I am sure the rental company took care of those.

ThatCanonGuy

I would go for the Canon 2.8 non-IS. Then again, I don't need IS like some people.

if I am not doing indoor sports shooting, would I be better off picking up a used F4 along with a flash or am I missing more of the benefits of the 2.8?

You'd be missing out on the background blur the 2.8 gives. Make no mistake, the f4 bokeh (background quality) is excellent, but the 2.8 gives more creaminess. With the f4, busy backgrounds can be distracting. The 2.8 version also gives you higher shutter speeds in low light. The 2.8 activates your camera's cross-type AF sensors, and it gives you a brighter VF.

That said, I have the f4 non-IS and it's fine. I would enjoy the benefits of the 2.8 if I had the budget, but the f4 is doing fine for me now. Plus, it's a bit lighter than the 2.8:

2.8 non-IS: 46.2 oz.
f4 non-IS: 24.9 oz.
f4 IS: 26.8 oz.

divmedic4

Thank you for more information TCG. Other than my 50 1.8, I haven't owned/used a lense without IS so have been very nervous about ordering one without it. If my technique is good I am guessing it shouldn't make too much of a difference but now you have me wondering if it is worth it for ~$800.

NeilL

My feeling is go with your idea of a used f4L IS. It'll be useful while you're still mulling and saving, and you can resell it without great loss. I think don't buy backward if you can avoid it, ie better you get IS. The body you would be using it on is also relevant, as is would you mainly be handholding. 70-200mm is versatile, but how useful that range is to you depends on what and how you shoot. Rather than extend your focal length, you might like to amuse yourself thinking laterally, eg a good 35mm prime for landscape, or a good 135mm prime for portraits, or a good 300mm prime for wildlife?

Neil

divmedic4

Thank you Neil. It is good to see a different perspective offered. I am using a 60D body so I have thought about the crop factor in this. I see alot of talk about primes on various sites but have looked at them as job specific lenses. I am leaning toward more flexible use right now.

zoomer

If you demand the best from yourself and your equipment and are always working to improve and make your photos the best they can be get the Canon 2.8, don't shortchange yourself because you will end up spending the money twice.

If this is a hobby and you are happy with occasionally getting a pretty good shot....but don't really spend time practicing and studying to improve go ahead wih the F4 version or the Sigma.

divmedic4

Zoomer - Wow! Thank you very much for the direct and to the point response. I see exactly what you are saying and it forces me to look in the mirror and decide what I want photography to be to me.

mr peas

I've only had experience with the Canon 70-200 2.8L with and without IS. After using IS, I can't even think about going back to the original non-IS version. The switch made me spoiled :P

If you think you'll find yourself in spots where the situation is heavy with low-light and you can't use flash, that IS and 2.8 aperture makes the difference between good shots and bad. However, if you're shooting mostly outdoors in daylight, that F4 70-200 copy lets you ease up on lactic acid build up in those arms!

When I first started, the best bang for the buck was a 50mm F1.8 lens for low-light situations, usually its all you'll need. I still use mine. If you need something for low-light, get that first; at around $100, its a keeper.

But in any case, these more expensive Canon copies will allow you to re-sell them if you need to b/c they hold their values extremely well. By looking at your current lens arsenal, it looks like you have those ranges covered. Unless you're stuck shooting sports indoors, definitely try the 50mm 1.8, that is if you haven't tried it yet. I think its also a good idea to rent first if you feel that you need to make comparisons. I actually prefer the black-paint on Sigma lenses over the white on L-glass, but that's just me.

Anyway, get shooting and show us your results

rainbow

It seems to me that you might need to be a little more certain about what you want to shoot with the lens before you commit to something like this. Spending about $2,400 for a 2.8 II IS when you are not sure about the use is a little bassackwards. My impression is this lens is best for indoor sports, but may not be best for landscapes, people, wildlife, or outdoor sports. For example, for less money, you can get the f/4 IS AND the 135 f/2L (this is the combo I have). The 135 would be excellent for indoor sports and people and the f/4 IS would cover the range with great sharpness at a much lighter weight (BUT IT IS NOT 2.8 ! -- just shouting out the response for advocates of that choice on their behalf).

Now if you started a thread on which of the two above options you should pursue, you would get a similar range of answers again: Some would do this and some would do that. Which still leaves you with the choice which is likely better made when you have a better idea of what you like to shoot. If you still want to buy and then figure out, then start with the f/4 IS at over $1,000 cheaper...

rpcrowe

It would depend on how you want to use the lens...
The entire series of Canon 70-200mm L lenses are wonderful. You cannot find one that doesn't provide great imagery. Which model you select depends on how you plan to use the lens, and of course your budget.

I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS around all the time and everywhere I photograph. I use this lens along with a 17-55mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras. I can carry the f/4L IS AND the extra 1.6x camera at the same weight as the f/2.8 Series lens alone.

I occasionally carry my 300mm f/4L IS (approximately the same weight as the f/2.8L series lenses) for a full day of walk-around shooting and it tires me to the point where I am no longer having fun.

I can shoot down to 1/30 second usingthe f/4L IS which can allow me to shoot in fairly low light.

As far as bokeh and narrow DOF goes, here are some examples...

divmedic4

Mr Peas, thank you. I do have the 50 1.8 and love the results when I use it. I agree with your spoiled by IS comment. I did notice the weight with the Sigma 2.8 I rented which is very close to the Canon weight.

Rainbow, thank you as well. I can see why you make the bassackwards comment on my original post. What I was trying to convey is that I don't have a single area I want to be locked in to. For landscape, I am very pleased with the results of my 17-70 but expect at some point to get a wider lense when I start seeing the need for it. Right now, I have been in enough situations that I want the longer reach for things such as being asked to take some portraits for friends, some child sports shots for other friends, etc. Based on what I have been told, this is a sign to look at upgrading equipment (when you start realizing real limitations of what you have) and I was trying to figure out if I would be better served by getting good glass and a flash versus top of the line glass. Recognizing the versatility in what I like to shoot, I didn't consider a prime like the 135 because I still think of the primes as "static" compared to "dynamic" factor of the zooms. This could very well be a product of where I am in growing as a photographer which is why I do appreciate constructive comments on any thread.

Rpcrowe, thanks to you as well. The 1/30 is pretty impressive and very good to hear. I appreciate the visuals of how the bokeh is on the F4 lense.

paddler4

Faced with this same choice awhile ago, I made a list of the pros and cons of the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS (then the cheaper MkI). Some of them:

--the extra stop of the 2.8. This helps with AF in low light, and it gives shallower DOF when wide open. The stop itself seemed not such a big deal to me to me--I won't often need it (never have once so far with that lens), and for the rare instance, I can always bump up ISO and accept a little bit more noise.
--the expense. Obvious.
--the weight. The 2.8 is big and HEAVY. I lug my gear around on my on my back, and my back ain't what it used to be. If I recall, the difference in weight is about a pound and a half. (You can get the specs on canon's or B&H's websites)

For me, given my particular uses, it was an easy decision. I bought the f/4 and saved the huge difference in $$ for other things that would get me more benefit, and I avoided lugging the huge 2.8 around. I couldn't be happier with the decision. However, there are other people, with other uses, for whom that would have been the wrong decision--e.g., people who shoot a lot in low light and need the better AF.

In either case, my own view is that I would not buy a lens 200mm long without IS, particularly on a crop sensor camera. I shot for decades before IS even existed, so of course it can be done. But having IS makes a huge difference, allowing much slower shutter speeds when hand-holding the camera.

ThatCanonGuy

rpcrowe wrote: »

I use this lens along with a 17-55mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

Interesting lens You mean 2.8?

divmedic4

Thank you Paddler. It is good seeing the thought process of someone else when it comes to these lenses. If only the lottery gods would smile on me, this choice would be so easy - lol.

ThatCanonGuy

divmedic4 wrote: »

Thank you Paddler. It is good seeing the thought process of someone else when it comes to these lenses. If only the lottery gods would smile on me, this choice would be so easy - lol.

Of course - everything!

divmedic4

Of course TCG. I am sure I am not the first to have that thought either.