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

[Kathy Rappaport]

Uh oh

We are treading in places we best not...as for a kind and gentle Nicolas, I think that I am the instigator of the trouble.

Cem,

I will be interested to see the variance in the bokeh. Actually, I think it would be a good test for met to do the same kind of test between my 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105is 4.0

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

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.

IIRC, the Canon teleconverters are only for use with telephoto lenses. So using one with the 18-55 is an unsupported configuration and it may not work.

enjoy your day,

Sean

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

And obviously the two most important advantages:
1) One stop wider aperture resulting in better bokeh

Wider apertures do not linearly correlate with the character of the boke. Correction of optical abberations (sic) in the lens design or lack thereof also greatly influence boke. With the 70-200 f/4 versus f/2.8 it is likely true, but only at apertures wider than f/2.8.

Your focal plane to background distance also influences boke. Turning on DoF preview and tweaking ones aperture to select the best compromise between the creamiest boke and best DoF can lead to aperture choices between f/10 and f/18 at times (ever the macro shooter).

2) One stop faster shutter speed

Not at apertures f/4 or smaller. At f/5.6 or smaller 3 stops of IS and a lighter lens will yield better handheld images than 2 stops of IS and a heavier lens in many peoples hands.l

some thoughts,

Sean

 

[Barry Johnston]

Which lens did you end up buying Cem ??

Hi Cem, which lens did you end up purchasing in the end ? and how do you find it ?

I'd be interested to know, as I am trying to make the same choice at present....

I also would like the 24-70 2.8 and a 100mm macro. Then I will call it quits !!..... for the moment.

Cheers,
Barry

 

[Ray West]

Hi Barry,

Cem bought the f4 IS, mentioned in his post of 5th Oct above. Most of his following images were with that lens, and from his posts, he seemed well pleased.

(I think Cem is off-line at the moment)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Barry Johnston]

Thanks Ray,
I must have missed a page there... some extremely nice results there. Canon L series lenses, certainly are the go....

Thanks,
Barry

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

One of my favorites

The 70-200 2.8is is one of the sharpest in my bag. I only wish it were lighter but I can hand hold it quite well for extended periods.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

200l

Hi there,

I know I am chiming in here a bit late, but I need to just re-iterate that if it is 200mm you are looking for, I cannot overstate how fantastically good the 200mm f/2.8L is - optical performance noticeably better than the already superb 70-200 (all four versions) in a smaller, lighter, better-handling lens. And (in my kit), the pleasantness of the bokeh is only bettered by the 50L. I do however not own the legendary-in-that-regard 85L.

The better performance becomes especially important if you want to use it with a teleconverter. It's a much more "limited" lens - no zoom, and no IS (which I have actually found to be far less of a problem that what I had thought it would be) but if you want the smallest 200mm with the best possible optical quality, it's a gem.

And at half the price of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS! Just decide if you really need a zoom or not. For the change, you could buy an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm Macro, both of which are also far superior to the L zooms in many respects (again, for the loss of versatility).

But Cem, I hope you enjoy your purchase! You cannot go wrong with the f/4, certainly it's canon's best zoom lens ever in terms of resolving power "wide open".

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

At long last I added the 70-200/4 IS to my 70-200/2.8 IS and am very pleased with the acquisition. I do feel a bit guilty of being able to attain the very positive level of IQ provided by the former lens and its excellent IS without having to bear the weight of the still remarkable 70-200/2.8. Many thanks to all the contributors to this thread.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

At long last I added the 70-200/4 IS to my 70-200/2.8 IS and am very pleased with the acquisition. I do feel a bit guilty of being able to attain the very positive level of IQ provided by the former lens and its excellent IS without having to bear the weight of the still remarkable 70-200/2.8. Many thanks to all the contributors to this thread.

Hi Ralph,

Despite the obvious benefits of wider maximum aperture, although it's just one stop difference, how would you characterize the difference in low light focusing ability and speed? It can be important to mention the body you used it on.

With regards to IQ, how about the difference in bokeh? I notice that the f/4.0 has a slightly harsher bokeh than the fixed focal length EF 200mm f/2.8 II (which has super smooth bokeh). Is it much different from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS?

Bart

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Hi Ralph,

Despite the obvious benefits of wider maximum aperture, although it's just one stop difference, how would you characterize the difference in low light focusing ability and speed? It can be important to mention the body you used it on.

With regards to IQ, how about the difference in bokeh? I notice that the f/4.0 has a slightly harsher bokeh than the fixed focal length EF 200mm f/2.8 II (which has super smooth bokeh). Is it much different from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS?

Bart

Hi Bart,

I haven't yet had that much experience with this lens to be able to do justice to your questions and to provide a pertinent comparison. On at least one occasion that I used it in relatively low light, I had no trouble achieving focus quite rapidly with my 1Ds2 (you remember that camera!!). In trying conditions and depending on my set focus point, I've had trouble achieving focus with both lenses. Suffice to say that if I was going out and the light to start with was really low, I would use the 70-200/2.8. On the other hand, on the occasion that I used the 70-200/4 in relatively low-light, and was outside for 6 hours covering a social issue for a humanitarian organization with several other lenses in my bag, I was happy to have the lower-weight 70-200/4 IS. I probably would not have had a heavier lens of that focal length in my bag otherwise. Having a capture whatever its shortcomings may be better than none at all. In regard to bokeh, again from the vantage point of limited experience with this lens, I'd have to say that I find it pleasing but will await saying more until I have the time to print out some pictures.
I got this lens at the same time as I got the 50/1.2 and have of late been using the latter quite a bit (along with my trustworthy 85/1.2 v1) to put it through its paces and to become more accustomed to it. Asher has spoken very highly of this lens and this prompted me to get it. While I do not think that it is of the same caliber as the 85/1.2, it seems that one can get some very satisfying images with it (and very fine bokeh). At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about its reliability in focusing at fairly close quarters. But this is very OT.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

I got this lens at the same time as I got the 50/1.2 and have of late been using the latter quite a bit (along with my trustworthy 85/1.2 v1) to put it through its paces and to become more accustomed to it. Asher has spoken very highly of this lens and this prompted me to get it. While I do not think that it is of the same caliber as the 85/1.2, it seems that one can get some very satisfying images with it (and very fine bokeh). At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about its reliability in focusing at fairly close quarters. But this is very OT.

Hi Ralph,

I know this is further off-topic: I refer you to the 50L thread started last year: The 50L is in danger of becoming one of my all-time favourite lenses for the character of the images it produces. Or, to use the proper term, for how it draws. It is somehow very, very different to any of the other lenses I own. I do not own the 85L, and have had limited occasion to use it, so I can accept that the 50L is potentially not quite as "good", but even so, it has a very different character.

It has a kind of "chunky" micro-contrast that make my images "pop" to such an extent that any form of sharpening actually seems to detract from the image. My images from this lens also seem to somehow have a natural depth that is quite different from that produced by a fast telephoto. Even so, I find the autofocus on this lens so unreliable that I am basically treating it as a fully manual-focus lens.

I feel, at this stage, that they may as well have left the USM motor and associated electronics out of it, and made it smaller - what chunk of glass that is for a mere 50mm! I find it to be, far and away, the most difficult of all my lenses to use. But, when you get it right, the most rewarding.

Lenses like the 100 Macro, 200L, 70-200L etc. are all clinical perfection, they just "work" - the 50L makes you work really hard to get results. But then, it is different in a way quite unobtainable with any of the aforementioned lenses.

But, I do guess, as customers of a hideously expensive piece of glass, we are probably within reason to be annoyed with Canon for the poor auto-focus. Anyway, this is off-topic, any further thoughts should probably be added to the correct thread.

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Hello Dawid,

I just wished to acknowledge your interesting post prior to going to the thread (with which I'm familiar) that you indicated above to check on some updates.

 

[Madhu Tyagi]

I have both and find f4 IS to be more useful for most situations unless you are shotting sports indoor. Lens weight does matter in most situation unless you are fond of using tripod all the time.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ralph,

Despite the obvious benefits of wider maximum aperture, although it's just one stop difference, how would you characterize the difference in low light focusing ability and speed? It can be important to mention the body you used it on.

With regards to IQ, how about the difference in bokeh? I notice that the f/4.0 has a slightly harsher bokeh than the fixed focal length EF 200mm f/2.8 II (which has super smooth bokeh). Is it much different from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS?

Bart

Bart,

I don't find the bokeh much different at f4.0 of the two versions of the lens although my f4 lens has no IS. The lightweight is valuable in simply being able to take that extra lens along. I wonder if one can hold it steadier by hand than the heavier lens and so mitigate against the loss of the extra light gathering power for acquiring focus in low light with the f2.8 zoom.

Asher

 

[Mike Bailey]

Here's another question regarding the differences between the two versions of the 70-200mm: for those who use or own both, have you noticed much difference in the apparent contrast of the two? Though I appreciate the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS that I use, I have always been disappointed by the contrast. I know this can largely be corrected in editing, but this lens has to have one of the poorest levels of contrast of any of the L lenses I have. I suppose the MTF charts tell the story - if you own the ideal lens the MTF models - but the experience of actual owners is far more valuable and realistic.

Mike

_________________
Mike Bailey
The Elemental Landscape
http://BlueRockPhotography.com

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Here's another question regarding the differences between the two versions of the 70-200mm: for those who use or own both, have you noticed much difference in the apparent contrast of the two? Though I appreciate the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS that I use, I have always been disappointed by the contrast. I know this can largely be corrected in editing, but this lens has to have one of the poorest levels of contrast of any of the L lenses I have. I suppose the MTF charts tell the story - if you own the ideal lens the MTF models - but the experience of actual owners is far more valuable and realistic.

I have owned the 70-200L IS f4 for a year and I now have the 70-200L IS f2.8 for almost two years. In all honesty (even now when I look back at the pictures I took with both lenses just to make sure) I have never seen an apparent difference of contrast between the two. Just my reaction as an actual user, nothing scientific ;-)

Cheers,

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I wonder if one can hold it steadier by hand than the heavier lens and so mitigate against the loss of the extra light gathering power for acquiring focus in low light with the f2.8 zoom.

That can work both ways. The camera plus lens has a substantially greater moment of inertia with the f/2.8 aboard than the f/4, and that can reduce the angular shift due to hand instability (somewhat of a "flywheel" effect). (This appeared in the result of the "Stanford" study of the camera shake model I recently reported here.)

Yet I know that in my case, holding such a heavy package in place for a while can be tiring, and I'm sure eventually leads to increasing hand "shakiness".

I hate to say it, but there may be an "age-appropriateness" to the choice of one or the other lens!

Best regards,

Doug