EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM or EF 70-200mm f4L IS

[mimik07]

If its between f/2.8 non-IS and f/4 IS, my choice is definitely the latter by virtue of the light-weight.

You can always compensate for the 1 stop with a speedlite

 

[Turbonetics]

to have enough light at high shutter speeds without raising your iso, you need a wide aperture. if your shutter speed is raised too high on f3.5, you'll have to compromise your picture by cranking up the iso which makes it more grainy. some people want that, others dont.

that's why aperture gives you more options. by being able to step up to f2.8, you're allowing shots that would otherwise force you to raise shutter speed and raise iso. f5.6 is possible to freeze motion, but try taking that to anything that isnt very well lit, you're gonna have a big problem (or rather a dilemma).

ofcourse F2.8 is a faster lens...
but from your previous post which u mentioned that at F3.5 can't perform its job well in freezing water fountain which is totally untrue..
yes,the key point lies in the lighting..

 

[akszaksz]

i'm sure when we all first started out with kit lens and f3.5, and we look at that water fountain and we're like: i wanna freeze that water!

and we couldnt! not very well at least. f2.8 gives you an OPTION. it's not perfect, but it's good for a zoom. how's TS doing with his choice so far?

oh and yeah i still extoll 70-200 IS Mark I, but when there's Mark II, you go for that first. Not enough cash but still want IS? Mark I. Not enough cash again but still want f2.8? Non-IS. just my two cents =D

Not buying yet, just getting some feedback from you guys.
Most probably getting next year.

rented a 2.8 non-IS before, as usual, weight is not an issue to me.
have yet to try f4.0 IS though.

 

[Razur]

Interestingly, people will overrate things they invested especially among the users of 70-200 F4 IS.

Sharpness of 70-200 F4 IS is only a little bit better than F2.8 @ F4 and 70mm, any other value of F (start from F5.6) and mm (till 200mm), F2.8 is fully better than F4. Need not to say, F2.8's impossible to be achieved on an F4 lens.

Don't waste your money, since they are same price (S$2300, till end of 2011), go for F2.8 ---- finally you will get an F2.8 lens by trade off your F4. Why do not marry F2.8 directly someone you are sure to marry later?

 

[rhino123]

Well to TS, it is really up to you... if the IS is useful to you or not. Since weigh is not an issue to you, then it came down to whether you like to have the IS or not.

I find my f4L pretty okay... although at times, I find that the autofocus is pretty slow (especially in bad lighting and/or high contrast area... but that is not a deal breaker for me).

I don't like the f2.8 not because the lens is not sharp or what... it is because it is too heavy for me...

And... IS is very important (for me, at least).

 

[Anson]

I think it was not mention yet. There is a different when you look thru the OVF on a F2.8 compared to the F4... It's so much brighter when you try to AF/MF in low-light suitation...

 

[Irvine]

to have enough light at high shutter speeds without raising your iso, you need a wide aperture. if your shutter speed is raised too high on f3.5, you'll have to compromise your picture by cranking up the iso which makes it more grainy. some people want that, others dont.

that's why aperture gives you more options. by being able to step up to f2.8, you're allowing shots that would otherwise force you to raise shutter speed and raise iso. f5.6 is possible to freeze motion, but try taking that to anything that isnt very well lit, you're gonna have a big problem (or rather a dilemma).

but don't forget that wider aperture = shallower depth of field

 

[Wizongod]

but don't forget that wider aperture = shallower depth of field

Which is very important for potraits as mentioned earlier!

 

[Valkarian]

but don't forget that wider aperture = shallower depth of field

DOF is not a deciding factor in IQ or choosing a lens as a smaller aperture number simple means u can have a shallower DOF. 2.8 is CAPABLE of having a shallow DOF, but it is not always shot Wide Open neither. 3.5 wouldnt be able to blur out the background as much as this.

 

[rhino123]

Which is very important for potraits as mentioned earlier!

But when taking portraiture shots, many don't go as big an aperture as a f/2.8... because at f/2.8, the DOF will be really thin, and most likely only part of the face will be in focus while all others are blurred out.

 

[Wizongod]

But when taking portraiture shots, many don't go as big an aperture as a f/2.8... because at f/2.8, the DOF will be really thin, and most likely only part of the face will be in focus while all others are blurred out.

Depends on how far you stand and how long you're taking. But like what we've mentioned, stopping down can be done with any lens, but you can't stop up, so having a wider aperture gives you more options.

 

[Razur]

But when taking portraiture shots, many don't go as big an aperture as a f/2.8... because at f/2.8, the DOF will be really thin, and most likely only part of the face will be in focus while all others are blurred out.

That is because you are too close to your subject
102mm F/2.8

Anyway, shallow DOF are nothing to be complained, otherwise how will F1.2L/F1.8L survive?

185mm F/2.8

 

[Kenneth67C]

You guys are posting pics taken with the f2.8L IS which is NOT the same as the standard f2.8L.
The bokeh is diff, the sharpness is diff and the Price is very different.

 

[poloabc]

thank for sharing

 

[rhino123]

That is because you are too close to your subject

Anyway, shallow DOF are nothing to be complained, otherwise how will F1.2L/F1.8L survive?

No doubt that 70-200mm f2.8L (IS or no IS) is a good lens to have... and nobody is complaining about shallow DOF, what I am merely pointing out is that it had thin DOF. Anyway, yourself and Wizongod had come up with very good point saying that distance of myself and the subject plays a part (I totally forget about it when typing my previous comment). But one should not forget about the thin DOF when using the f2.8L (be it with IS or not).

Also, 70-200mm f4L (with or without IS) is also a very good lens too... or "in your own word" otherwise how will f4L survive?

Afterall it boils down to weigh difference of the two lenses f4 and f2.8 and maybe the IQ quality and such... also the budget one is willing to spend.

For me... and I have always stressed, I find the weigh of the f2.8 too much to bare. But for TS, if he is fine with it... then get the f2.8. As for the lack of IS... well, if his breathing, hand holding techniques and the such are good enough and he is able to achieve fast enough shutter speed, then it might be alright. Worst come to worst, he can still rely on a tripod and/or a monopod.

 

[Razur]

You guys are posting pics taken with the f2.8L IS which is NOT the same as the standard f2.8L.
The bokeh is diff, the sharpness is diff and the Price is very different.

The optical IQ and bokeh from non-IS 70-200 F2.8L should be even better than IS one.

That's why I always thumb up an F/2.8 lens (either IS or not). Optical bokeh from F2.8 can never been melt on an F4 lens and always better than any bokeh made artificially by photoshop.

Ha, 70-200 F/2.8L!

 

[Razur]

Thanks.

To me, weight was never an issue. IMO, the heavier, the better, for you need more force to shake it.

Wasn't it always shaky shaky when we shoot video with an IPhone?

 

[Kenneth67C]

The optical IQ and bokeh from non-IS 70-200 F2.8L should be even better than IS one.

That's why I always thumb up an F/2.8 lens (either IS or not). Optical bokeh from F2.8 can never been melt on an F4 lens and always better than any bokeh made artificially by photoshop.

Ha, 70-200 F/2.8L!

Before you go on, could you please, please make sure your facts are correct before making assumptions.
The bokeh and optical quality of the IS version are obviously better than the non-IS version, otherwise they would not be able to sell the Mk II at the price they are selling it.

 

[Razur]

EF70-200 F/2.8L IS - this lens shouldn't even be mentioned because its discontinued, you're way OT.

I assume you'd never used this two lens.

We're talking about EF70-200 F2.8/L USM and EF70-200 F/2.8L IS.

Are you talking about the new king EF70-200 F/2.8L IS II?

 

[Kenneth67C]

I assume you'd never used this two lens.

We're talking about EF70-200 F2.8/L USM and EF70-200 F/2.8L IS.

Are you talking about the new king EF70-200 F/2.8L IS II?

EF70-200 F/2.8L IS - this lens shouldn't even be mentioned because its discontinued, you're way OT.