Canon 70-200mm f4 or f2.8

The MekonThe Mekon Registered Users Posts: 2 Beginner grinner
edited March 5, 2012 in Accessories
Hi everybody,

Hope you can help.....
Looking at the canon 70-200mm L lenses after selling a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which had been a great lens for me just a bit soft at 200 and wide open, and I've been reading the canon are pretty much sharp right across their range.
I do some equestrian photography and this tends to be outside from spring to late summer when hopefully the light is better. I am also looking at doing some family and portrait shots with a studio kit I have, the lights are 400w. I think with the equestrian theres the chance i'll miss the extra stop with the f4 if the light drops but also would like to hear if anyone has used the 70-200's for studio work and how well they do with studio lighting.

Thanks

Andy

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited March 2, 2012
    What body/bodies are you using?

    What do you mean by "studio lighting"? (Please be specific to both the lights and modifiers.)

    What size is your studio shooting space?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • BendrBendr Registered Users Posts: 665 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2012
    I own the 70-200 f/4 IS, I recently had the opportunity to use a friends 70-200 f/2.8 IS II to shoot some barbershop quartets singing.

    Here are my thoughts, If you need that extra stop, you need it, But... I kept switching back to my lens, just because the extra weight of the 2.8 was a challenge to handhold, and my shutter speeds were acceptable with the loss of the extra stop...

    If you look at equestrian shots you've done before, were you shooting wide open then?

    Ben
    http://bendr.smugmug.com
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2012
    I'm a big fan of 2.8 lenses (and even in summer, in the NW of England the light levels are sometimes going to be low due to cloud cover) BUT have resisted the 70-200's because I am just not comfortable with that kind of weight. Until now, I've used the 135L as a telephoto.

    That said, I currently have a 70-200 f4 on its way to me; I have a feeling the lack of 2.8 will bug me, but not enough to carry around an extra pound of lens. Plus, of course, the f4 is much less expensive. We'll see how it works out; samples I have seen are consistently very sharp, with great colour and contrast - I'm definitely looking forward to trying it.

    Ben's question above to check your exifs is a good one - what aperture/speed combos were you using with the 2.8 lens? That will give you some idea of whether or not the f4 would work for you.
    facebook | photo site |
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited March 3, 2012
    The f4 (I own one) is lighter. The 2.8 gives you an extra stop. That will make your backgrounds less distracting. It'll also activate 2.8 cross type AF sensors. And it gives you a brighter viewfinder. If you're shooting sports or portraits, you could use a monopod to help with the weight.
  • rexbobcatrexbobcat Registered Users Posts: 49 Big grins
    edited March 3, 2012
    The 2.8 is very sharp wide open, and their AF is more accurate than the Sigma, I believe. If you are SOLELY going to use it in a studio setting, then I could just consider the f/4 since the subjects aren't going to be moving a lot (I assume?), now, if you are going to shoot sports as well, spend the extra money and get the f/2.8 version. It's almost essential for low-light, convenient, affordable sports photography.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited March 4, 2012
    Well, I would recommend to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II simply because it is more versatile.
    Not only is fast, it also pairs very well with the Canon 2.0x Extender II (and III) which might
    be very handy for when you shoot horses outdoors and need something longer than 200mm (tournaments?).
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 4, 2012
    The 2.8 II is also terrifyingly expensive rolleyes1.gif It is, of course, the optimum quality lens in this focal range if you have the money and don't mind the weight. But it is a massive chunk o' change (and I presume in Europe even more so)....
    facebook | photo site |
  • The MekonThe Mekon Registered Users Posts: 2 Beginner grinner
    edited March 5, 2012
    Hi all,

    Sorry a little late replying, but thanks for all your comments, much appreciated. Knowing the british weather even in summer (overcast or rain), thinking of going for the f2.8 (is or non is still in debate) would kick myself if i went for the f4 and lost a good picture because of low light, will only be the is mark I version if i do go for is as you said Divamum the mark II is terrifyingly expensive....couldn't agree more.

    Thanks again

    Andy
Sign In or Register to comment.