Canon EF 70-200mm: f/2.8 or f/4?

jessesteinen

Hi,

After lurking here for some time, reading all posts and getting infected with the 70-200 2.8 madness here I've decided to shell out the dough and give it a go as well. I'm just not sure whether to buy the f/2.8 or the f/4 plus an 85mm prime.

Might be helpful to tell you what I like to shoot first: concert photography, landscapes/architecture/wildlife. I don't foresee doing any portrait or sports/action photography at all.

I currently own a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (great for concert photography although its range sometimes falls a bit short) and a Sigma 50mm macro.

So the trade off as far as I see it is:
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM + Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 prime
Will set me back about €1200, but is more versatile I think and about same-ish to carry around (1 heavy lens vs 2 lighter ones).
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM
About the same price, no need to switch lenses but schlepping around all the weight on the body all the time.

Keep in mind that I -may- be switching to a 5D body in the, unfortunately not so very near, future. Don't know if that would have any influence.

Your thoughts are much appreciated!

Thanks, Jesse

Scott_Quier

OK, the desire to photograph concerts is the key - I am thinking you need the fastest glass you can get - the f/4 may not cover the bill on this. For this reason, I would suggest the f/2.8.

JH-Photo

Dear photo-friend,

I use the 70-200mm f=2,8
and I also have the 50mm 1,8 and 85mm 1,8 and in the past i have had the 70-200 f=4 and 85mm f=1,2

Personally I like at most the 70-200 f=2,8.

The way of using is much more easy. The blur is much more nice if I compare the 85 1,8 with the 85mm 1,2...

also the focus is faster.

I would suggest you to buy the 70-200 f = 2,8 and also the 50mm f = 1,4

So you have all important lenses. Maybe one 17 - 85 mm for traveling :-)

Best regards
JH

jessesteinen

Thanks for your quick replies. Please keep in mind that I already have the 30mm f/1.4 for stage photography and I would only buy the 85mm f/1.2 for close up shots on stage. The 70-200 with its f/2.8 would not be bright enough I fear so I don't expect to be using the 70-200 for that anyway. So the question is rather: excluding stage photography, should I get the f/2.8 or f/4?

Some prices I found:
70-200 f/4 non IS: €400 (used, 6mo old)
70-200 f/4 IS: €900
70-200 f/2.8 non IS: new €1000 or used for €650
70-200 f/2.8 IS: new €1300

Especially with the 2.8 used for €650 I'm thinking really hard how much IS can be worth to me.

Thanks, Jesse

ziggy53

Jesse,

First, welcome to the Digital Grin.

I have the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM.

I use the f2.8 for night and low-light (indoor) events and the f4 IS is for travel and daylight situations.

They both share rapid and accurate autofocus and good sharpness wide open with the sharpest setting around f5.6.

If you need to use the lens indoors or at night get the f2.8 version, either IS or not depending on the subject matter.

claudermilk

Concerts would push you to the f2.8 variant. I have no trouble using mine on my 20D--just don't be afraid of ISO 3200. I have the non-IS version and after having used rented & borrowed IS versions for a year I don't miss it. Excluding the low-light needs, the f4 version is half the price, lighter and test results show it's a hair sharper.

jessesteinen

Considering that I would use the 70-200 in low-light only occasionally, I think I've made my mind up and will go for the f/4 and buy an extra 85mm f/1.8 to use together with the 30mm f/1.4 for stage photos. f/2.8 might not be enough for me as on my 400D body, I cannot go beyond ISO800 without getting too much noise.

Only €400 for the used f/4 will leave some dough for other stuff I still need to buy (flash, tripod).

Thanks all, I'm off to pick up the f/4 tonight

ziggy53

jessesteinen wrote:

.. on my 400D body, I cannot go beyond ISO800 without getting too much noise.

...

Jesse,

If you shoot RAW and process carefully, ISO 1600 should be usable in most cases.

darkdragon

If you are debating which to get, you probably have the money/disire for the best. I like the 2.8 because I have the option of using the 2xTC with it and still retain autofocus. The 2.8 IS is nice but have no need for the IS because my shutter speeds are usually too fast to matter, plus it is very heavy and I don't need to carry around extra dead weight.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I think that is what you were asking for though, opinions.

My advise is to go for the 2.8 non-IS. If you find you really need IS you can resell it in a month or two and still get most of your money back (cheaper than renting at least).

GJMPhoto

darkdragon wrote:

If you are debating which to get, you probably have the money/disire for the best. I like the 2.8 because I have the option of using the 2xTC with it and still retain autofocus. The 2.8 IS is nice but have no need for the IS because my shutter speeds are usually too fast to matter, plus it is very heavy and I don't need to carry around extra dead weight.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I think that is what you were asking for though, opinions.

My advise is to go for the 2.8 non-IS. If you find you really need IS you can resell it in a month or two and still get most of your money back (cheaper than renting at least).

Yeah...I have to agree. I own the 2.8 IS and love it...and use for concerts all the time (both from the audience balconies and the wings) and find I can get away with ISOs of 1000-1600 and still keep the images sharp.

BUt I have to stress that I agree with the non-IS comment. People tend to forget the IS does nothing to help stop the movement in front of you. Ballerinas will be blurry, IS or not, unless you're shooting fast enough to stop them. If you're thinking about a monopod, you can save money and weight by going non-IS.

As for the 85 1.2 - it's a portrait lens...and one of the most beautiful ones I've had the pleasure of lugging around...but man is that thing heavy (and slow focusing).

- Gary.

Scott_Quier

ziggy53 wrote:

Jesse,

If you shoot RAW and process carefully, ISO 1600 should be usable in most cases.

Especially if you use something like Noise Ninja or Neat Image (?) to reduce the noise a touch.

Or, you can shoot 1600 or 3200 and work it up B&W - make it gritty and cool!

jessesteinen

Scott_Quier wrote:

Or, you can shoot 1600 or 3200 and work it up B&W - make it gritty and cool!

That's what I usually do to cover up the grainy shots

Decided to go for the f/4 and get an 85mm prime later, not entirely unrelated to the price I got it for (around €400). Now the sun needs to start shining for some nice piccies.

Thx everyone!

dlplumer

I have a perfect 70-200 F/4 non IS and would prefer the IS. If you would like to purchase my lens give me a PM and we can talk.

jessesteinen

dlplumer wrote:

I have a perfect 70-200 F/4 non IS and would prefer the IS. If you would like to purchase my lens give me a PM and we can talk.

I picked mine up yesterday evening, two would be a bit overkill now wouldn't it?

Manfr3d

Good choice. I own the 70-200/2.8 L and it is very heavy
and bulky if you carry it for longer times. f2.8 is also too
slow for some concerts. I wished I had the f4 as well

evoryware

How could f4 be better than f2.8 at a concert when IS doesn't stop motion?

Manfr3d

evoryware wrote:

How could f4 be better than f2.8 at a concert when IS doesn't stop motion?

Thats when he's going to use the 85/1.8 ...