Canon EF 70-200mm L IS F2.8 vs F4

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Folks,

For my 5D, I am about to buy one of these two lenses. My current lenses are: Sigma 12-24mm, EF 24-105mm L IS F4 and EF 50mm F1.8.

Under ideal circumstances, I'd like to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm L IS F2.8 but the price of it is almost the double of the price of the F4.

F4 seems to be a very sharp lens, IS compensation is up tp 3.5-4 stops.
It is also lighter in weight, it won't break one's back.

F2.8 is as sharp (at least when used at F4), IS compensation is aound 3 stops.
It is heavier but I can share my CircPol filter from the 24-105 (77mm) and don't need to buy a tripod mount ring like in the case of F4.

And ovbiously the two most important advantages:
1) One stop wider aperture resulting in better bokeh
2) One stop faster shutter speed

Please help me make up my mind:
Is the 2.8 worth the extra 650 Euro (some 900 US $) or are we just splitting hairs here?

Also, should I buy the 1.4x TC along with these lenses?

Cheers,

 

[Don Lashier]

Hi Cem,

I've got the f4 and I love it. It's light enough that you don't need the tripod ring. For daytime outdoor use I think that f4 is plenty, but there are occasions when I wish I had the f2.8 either for shallow DOF or for indoor low-light situations. Some day I may get the f2.8 but almost definitely will not get rid of the f4 as it's just so much lighter and easier to pack around when in the field.

- DL

 

[Ron Morse]

I had the f/4 and sold it to get the 2.8 IS. I thought that I needed the IS for horse shows. Turned out that the camera focus was way off. I believe that the f/4 took just as sharp pictures as the 2.8 IS and was a lot lighter. With that said their are times that the 2.8 IS will get good shots where the f/4 would really struggle.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Cem,

I have the f4 and the 2.8 IS. The f4 is every bit as sharp if not sharper than the 2.8L and can be used wide open. It's so light and I can put it in my pants pocket, LOL!

I need the 2.8 more for wedding to get focus in the dim light of an even dinner, even though I'm using flash. However, most work can be done with the f4.0

I keep thinking of selling the f4. I'll do it when I need to buy a new LF camera or something like that!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Cem,

It depends a bit on your use. For working in very dim environments the extra stop of the f/2.8 will help in getting faster focus, but for better optical performance you'll need to stop it down to f/4.0, where as the f/4.0 is already sharp wide open (although it vignettes a little at f/4.0 on a FF sensor, solvable in postprocessing).

I decided for getting the f/4.0 because I wanted a (much) lighter/compact lens for travel, so the price difference was ' just' a bonus. The IS performance is phenomenal. It works fine combined with the 1.4x Extender II, although focus speed will suffer a little bit. I don't know how fast it focuses on a 5D, but on my 1Ds2 it's plenty fast enough.

Bart

 

[Don Lashier]

Yes, I forgot about the extender. Definitely get the 1.4 extender - these lenses are so sharp that the extender takes IQ down to only "ordinary" L lenses like the 24-70.

- DL

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Love my 2.8

Some of the best images I've taken were with my 70-200 2.8 - sharp as a tack. Beautiful bokeh and I have no weight complaints about it on my 5D. I do use a hand strap when I shoot.

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonjour Cem
When you buy a lens, it is not like a digital body… it will last for years…

Go to the ƒ2.8, outstanding, and with the 1.4 Extender, You'll appreciate the extra stop, BTW do consider a monopod too, you'll get more keepers!

This lens is magnificient! (see here)

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Thanks to all

Firstly, thanks to everybody for the good advice you’ve given.

Until I came across the posts of Kathy and Nicolas (in reading order) I was pretty much convinced that I should have the F4 IS. Nicolas knows exactly which chords to strike, he's made me start doubting again.

Seriously, how much difference it will make if have to focus in low light? I do not do weddings, but I do shoot in low light quite often. Also, I can always focus manually if AF fails, can't I? BTW, I use CF4-3 and am used to manually adjusting the focus after acquiring the AF with the * button first.

The low focus AF performance would be the only real reason for me to go to F2.8 IS; I guess.
And also the fact that it looks more macho <LOL>

Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Seriously, how much difference it will make if have to focus in low light? I do not do weddings, but I do shoot in low light quite often.

Well, if that and the use of an extender is the main purpose, go for the f/2.8. If portability is important, since the difference in size and weight is considerable(!), go for the f/4.0 . That's my condensed take on the dilemma.

Bart

 

[nicolas claris]

Once you'll have reached 200 mm, you'll want more… then extender (1.4 has better IQ than 2) then the extra stop will be welcome (you loose one stop with the extender 1.4)…

guitars, guitars, violin, and violoncellos chords…

 

[Ray West]

Hi Cem,

If you are using a tripod, why do you need the is f2.8 ? Do they still make the non is version? May not be worth the saving, to you, but less moving bits 'to go wrong'.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Once you'll have reached 200 mm, you'll want more…

Yes, I want a 500mm

(already have the extenders).

Bart

 

[nicolas claris]

Sorry Bart

mine is not for sale!

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

I've got the 70-200/2.8 IS and it is a very fine zoom, although with the 1Ds2 and some other lenses in my bag, I find it adds a lot of weight. For that reason, I've been thinking of also getting the 70-200/4 IS, for times when low-light will not be a primary consideration. The difference in weight is considerable, and should be taken into account for the long term. As was observed before, digital camera bodies may be more or less short term affairs, but good lenses are a long term commitment.

 

[Tim Armes]

Hi Cem,

If you are using a tripod, why do you need the is f2.8 ?

Ray

Depth of field of course!

Cem,

I'll say this: if you don't know which to go for, then you probably don't need 2.8 today, because if the creative uses of wide apertures were important to your style of photography then you wouldn't need to ask the question.

Of course, we all evolve photographically, and lenses are a big investment, so you should ask yourself this question: will you want 2.8 in the future? Will you need or want less depth of field?

Personally I chose to buy an 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.0 over the 70-200mm; for me, having a wide aperture is far more important that having the practicality of a zoom. The added bonus is that the primes are sharper too (although the 70-200 is clearly excellent in this area).

Tim

 

[Marian Howell]

hi cem! i've got a 5d and the f/2.8IS plus happen to have been playing with an f/4 non-IS for the last few months. while i routinely shoot hand holding a 300 f/2.8 IS and am not concerned by the weight diffeerence as a deal breaker, i will say that the old f/4 really can be stuffed in a pocket as asher says! and this has come in handy on occasion. i use it exclusively for landscapes though. i wouldn't worry about a tripod ring either, as don says you don't need one. i put it up in the tripod in a bh55 with the camera plate and have no drooping issues. and a friend recently got the old non-IS f/2.8 for his 1ds2 and enjoys it for landscapes and likes the savings. however, i still use the 2.8 for anything low light or moderately active. you do shoot a lot in low light. additionally as nicolas says, the 1.4 extender over the 2.0 because of IQ works like a charm on the 2.8, and i used it alot until i gave in to the siren call of the 300 LOL! nicolas is so right about that!!
if you can, i would get the 2.8IS and use it for a while. if you find you are not taking advantage of it enough, it's resale value stays pretty high.
enjoy this delicious dilemma...

 

[Ray West]

Hi Tim,

Although it may have not been clear in my previous cryptic question, I was asking why do you need _is_ f2.8 with a tripod. When I last looked, there was a non 'image stabilised' version available, which iirc was nearer the f4 price. 'is' can be an unnecessary complication.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim,

Although it may have not been clear in my previous cryptic question, I was asking why do you need _is_ f2.8 with a tripod. When I last looked, there was a non 'image stabilised' version available, which iirc was nearer the f4 price. 'is' can be an unnecessary complication.

Best wishes,

Ray

Quite so, I should have read your question more attentively. That said, it's probably clearer to write "2.8 IS" than "is 2.8" - my mind skipped over the "is" as a misplaced word, especially since it came before the aperture. Of course, had I not ignored the rest of the sentence I wouldn't have made the mistake!

Anyhow, you pose a good question - f/4 IS or f/2.8 non IS. Here are the main points:

1) The f/2.8 gives you one extra stop of hand-holding possibility, but at the cost of depth of field, whereas the 4.0 gives you 3 stops of hand-holding possibility at any aperture. Winner: f/4.

2) The f/2.8 gives you one extra stop of light in darkened conditions when photographing moving subjects. The f/4 doesn't. Winner: f/2.8.

3) The f/4 is lighter and smaller. Winner f/4.

4) The wider aperture of the f/2.8 can offer more creative possibilities, especially when taking portraits. Winner: f/2.8.

5) The f/2.8 has better bokeh (creaminess of the blurred areas). Winner: f/2.8.

Conclusion: look at your personal requirements and buy what you need. If you're always going to be shooting on a tripod then IS isn't useful, the f/2.8 may be better.

On the other hand, this is a good size lens for hand-holding, so why limit yourself to a tripod? For hand-holding IS would be useful. Unless of course your subject is moving and the light isn't good, then you'll really appreciate the 2.8.

Real conclusion: The 2.8 IS, while more expensive, is the most versatile lens. It's great for darker shooting conditions and ideal for hand-holding, and the wide aperture offers more photographic possibilites. It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim

 

[Ray West]

Hi Tim,

I think that 200mm is not long enough - few lenses are ;-), how about adding to your list the effect of teleconvertors. And then, as cameras improve in high iso performance, I think the the depth of field will be the most important issue.

I don't know whether any of this helps Cem. I'm waiting to see what he gets, then we can all wait to see how much he sells it for a couple of weeks later, before buying the other..... ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim,

I think that 200mm is not long enough - few lenses are ;-), how about adding to your list the effect of teleconvertors. And then, as cameras improve in high iso performance, I think the the depth of field will be the most important issue.

Good point. The f/2.8 gives you one stop more latitude when adding a teleconverter, which is not only helpful photographically but also helps the autofocus system. For example, the f/4 with a x2 teleconverter won't allow focusing on anything other than the pro series cameras which have a central focus point offering f/8 minimum autofocusing. The f/2.8 will be at f/5.6, which will work on any Canon DSLR. Since the 70-200 is an ideal candidate for use with a teleconverter, this may be of importance when making a decision.

Another minor detail: the 2.8 will have a brighter viewfinder, which offers a more pleasing experience.

As for 200mm not being long enough, this is totally subjective and depends entirely on the photography being done. I rarely use my 135mm and never need more than that. The welder picture that I posted a few days ago is one such example.

Tim

 

[Rachel Foster]

So, a teleconverter can be useful? I'm thinking of adding a teleconverter to my 18-55 "came with the camera" lens til I can buy a good lens with IS.

It's far from ideal, but some teleconverters are pretty inexpensive and better than nothing...or so I'm hoping. Some discussions think it's a total waste of time, but it might be a while before I can get a 70-300 IS.

 

[Tim Armes]

So, a teleconverter can be useful? I'm thinking of adding a teleconverter to my 18-55 "came with the camera" lens til I can buy a good lens with IS.

It's far from ideal, but some teleconverters are pretty inexpensive and better than nothing...or so I'm hoping.

A teleconverter reduces the quality of the image, so to be useful it needs to be used on a very good quality lens. I wouldn't recommend one for use on the kit lens (or any consumer lens for that matter).

Tim

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Tim. That was what I was tentatively concluding as well. Unfortunately, I need the IS so it will be a while.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Teleconverter with Non L Lenses?

I did not think you could use a TC on Non-L lenses or to get rigd of hte double ngegative..
I thought that the TC was only useable on the L Lenses.

 

[Don Lashier]

Cem, I don't recall ever having trouble obtaining focus with my f4, even in lowlight conditions. I would consider skipping the IS on the f4 because the assumption here is that you won't shoot much low light anyway so your shutter is usually going to be 1/500 or faster and handholding is really no problem without IS. Also the IS adds to the weight and bulk of the lens defeating its "pocketability". On those rare occasions I shoot indoors with the lens I use a tripod. If I were going to shoot indoors (stage etc) a lot I'd go for a 1.8 prime anyway. This brings the price down to $579.

That said I still pine for a 2.8 but primarily to blur the background in stadium situations.

> It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim, "slightly" heavier? The 2.8 IS is over twice the weight and maybe 50% bigger (volume).

- DL

 

[Tim Armes]

> It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim, "slightly" heavier? The 2.8 IS is over twice the weight and maybe 50% bigger (volume).
- DL

True. Still, I didn't find it all all that heavy in use.

 

[Tim Armes]

I did not think you could use a TC on Non-L lenses or to get rigd of hte double ngegative..
I thought that the TC was only useable on the L Lenses.

This is true of the Canon TC (although there are a few comptaible non-Ls, if I remember correctly). There are other TC on the market however.

That said, I'm not aware of any others that have the same reputation as the Canon ones.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi there,

Let me start by saying how much I appreciate all your input, thanks a lot again.

This morning I've decided to be a bit more scientific and do an analysis on my portfolio. Just to find out what features I'll need the most. Mind you, I haven't had a tele lens since I started shooting digital so my analysis was based on extrapolation and guesstimates <LOL>. Still, my gut feeling says that the results are usable.

I did have a look at some 100 pictures and noted how much would they be helped by one of the following features:
Zoom beyond the 200mm, possibly at least 300mm needed: 25%
Low light shooting, i.e. F2.8 would be needed: 12%
Better bokeh needed: 14%
IS would have saved the otherwise ruined shot: 19 %

So based on these figures and the fact that my budget is rather limited (I need to spend as little as possible ATM), I have come up with the following options:

Option 1: Buy an F4 (non-IS) with a 1.4x TC and a good lightweight monopod.
I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8, but the 19% IS needing situations will be compensated to a certain degree by the monopod. Total lost opportunities: 14% max.

Option 2: Buy an F4 IS with a 1.4x TC.
I’ I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8. Total cost with respect to option 1 will increase by some 420 US $ (300 Euros). Total lost opportunities: 14% max. This is a budget strecthing option.

Option 3: Buy an F4 IS only.
I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8 and 25% on the zoom. Total cost with respect to option 1 will remain the same. Total lost opportunities: 25% max.

Option 4: Buy an F2.8 (non-IS) with a 1.4x TC and a good lightweight monopod
The 19% IS needing situations will be compensated to a certain degree by the monopod. Total cost with respect to option 1 will increase by some 770 US $ (550 Euros). Total lost opportunities: 10% max. This is truly a budget breaking option.

So which option appeals to you? Shall using a monopod partially compensate for not having an IS as I've assumed that it will? If so, which monopod do you recommend?

Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So which option appeals to you? Shall using a monopod partially compensate for not having an IS as I've assumed that it will? If so, which monopod do you recommend?

Cem, rather than making the choice you will ultimately have to make yourself, let me add some things to contemplate.

- You can always add an extender at a later date, 200mm is a wonderful focal length.
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS!
- f/2.8 is nice for bokeh, but image quality suffers a bit wide open (you may end up stopping down anyway).
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS (can't stress that enough at longer focal lengths.
Camera shake is more devastating than many care to admit, or even realise.
The steady viewfinder image also helps composing and focusing.
- The f/4 IS is an amazing lens, relatively compact and light, and an optical marvel at the longer FL end, where I use it most.
- I don't know the difference in focus speed on the 5D, but on the 1 series the f/4 IS is fast enough, even in dim light.
Sure, f/2.8 is faster, but at a price.
- Did I mention the usefulness of IS?

As for monopods, I'm very happy with my Gitzo GM3550.

Bart