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

[Valkarian]

does your work prohibit the use of a tripod? if not, just go for the 2.8. If you;re worried about IS, because of the IS MARK II out now, the used 2.8 IS MARK Is are selling lower and lower each day. they still provide a decent 3 stop IS which functions well in this tele.

If you do not require the 2.8 though, the truth is that the IQ for 2.8 stopped down to F4 is slightly (very little) not as good as f4 itself.

personally, the weight isnt a problem unless you shooting whole day w/o tripod. tripod = shooe weightless but lug around a bigger arsenal. rent and test urself will solve this problem no problem =D

 

[Turbonetics]

does your work prohibit the use of a tripod? if not, just go for the 2.8. If you;re worried about IS, because of the IS MARK II out now, the used 2.8 IS MARK Is are selling lower and lower each day. they still provide a decent 3 stop IS which functions well in this tele.

If you do not require the 2.8 though, the truth is that the IQ for 2.8 stopped down to F4 is slightly (very little) not as good as f4 itself.

personally, the weight isnt a problem unless you shooting whole day w/o tripod. tripod = shooe weightless but lug around a bigger arsenal. rent and test urself will solve this problem no problem =D

are u very sure on the above statement?

 

[ThunderBolt]

Had a 70-200f/4 IS, till today regret that i sold it.

 

[Valkarian]

are u very sure on the above statement?

very slightly. it almost doesnt make a difference to many who require the f2.8 lens IQ is always debatable my friend =D

 

[rprod]

Hi,

I owned a 70-200mm F2.8L before. It is a good lens, tough and a good workhorse. If there is adequate lighting or a monopod/tripod for lower lighting or you are really strong, this lens is on par with the 4L IS.

But if you are mainly taking it outdoor..etc, go for 70-200F4L IS. Or get the 70-300mm 4~5.6L (this has good shape almost as the 70-200mm F2.8L IS Mark II.
What are you using it for? Low light or outdoor shots on sports...etc? You need to know the main purpose you are using the lens.

Many "all rounders" would finally end up with just a couple of lens to suit their immediate needs.

 

[Turbonetics]

very slightly. it almost doesnt make a difference to many who require the f2.8 lens IQ is always debatable my friend =D

usually lens are sharper a few stop down the largest aperture..
so when you said the 70-200mmF2.8 when stop down to F4 which is its or near its sharp spot whereas the 70-200mmF4 IS on its largest aperture is not its sharpest,yet it is still sharper than the 70-200mmF2.8 lens at F4..and the 70-200mmF4 should be much sharper when stop down 2-3 stop..
this really raise my eyebrow and drop my jaw..

 

[Valkarian]

usually lens are sharper a few stop down the largest aperture..
so when you said the 70-200mmF2.8 when stop down to F4 which is its or near its sharp spot whereas the 70-200mmF4 IS on its largest aperture is not its sharpest,yet it is still sharper than the 70-200mmF2.8 lens at F4..and the 70-200mmF4 should be much sharper when stop down 2-3 stop..
this really raise my eyebrow and drop my jaw..

haiz go read up a little. besides i personally tried out both 2.8 and 4 is. PERSONALLY i feel that 2.8 is best at f8. the f4 is made to achieve its best without the ability to go to 2.8, thus when you only stop the 2.8 down to f4, the iq improvement is not improved very much trust me. that said, i understand what you mean by lenses are supposed to have their sharpest point just off their wide open status, but it also varies from lens to lens where that sharpest point is no?

 

[Anson]

Had a 70-200f/4 IS, till today regret that i sold it.

Why not just buy it back?

 

[Wizongod]

I was shooting indoor during AFA (Anime Festival Asia) at the stage area. I had the 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and a tripod as well, which is as good as an IS IMO, since I get a stop reduction indirectly, but when you're maxing it out at 200mm, and under poor lighting conditions (I was doing ISO 800 or 400 I think), you come to one problem that IS cannot fix: Motion blur.

Even if you have the best IS in the world, you cannot stop your subject from causing the blur. I.e. the emcee I was photographing (Danny Choo, if you guys know him) was moving, and gesturing. The blurs caused by that cannot be solved by IS, but can be solved by a higher shutter speed, which can only be done with a wider aperture.

This is a very specific case, but please bear that in mind when choosing it if you feel that you might encounter this situation quite often.

 

[Valkarian]

HahA! I was shooting at AFA as well, and the lighting on stage was bright, but everywhere else was really poorly lit! You think Danny moves a lot? Try taking a photo during the RCC XD (eh you probably did) im sure you got real nice photos of cosplayers with the 70-200 tho =D

Anyhow, as you said, TRIPOD is the cure for IS. So the most impt point between the two is whether you can and want to use a tripod in your common shooting situation.

 

[Anson]

I was shooting indoor during AFA (Anime Festival Asia) at the stage area. I had the 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and a tripod as well, which is as good as an IS IMO, since I get a stop reduction indirectly, but when you're maxing it out at 200mm, and under poor lighting conditions (I was doing ISO 800 or 400 I think), you come to one problem that IS cannot fix: Motion blur.

Sometime you want to achieve Motion Blur, to get the moment.

Stage shot taken at EOY'11

 

[Wizongod]

Sometime you want to achieve Motion Blur, to get the moment.

Yes, of course. But you don't want to be forced to get motion blur all the time do you? A faster lens can be stopped down, coupled with a slow shutter to achieve that, but a slow lens does not have the luxury of widening its aperture so that shutterspeed can be increased to prevent motion blur when necessary. More options = more adaptability.

 

[Anson]

More options = more adaptability.

Haha... that why I got the 70-200F2.8IS from the start.

 

[Valkarian]

Haha... that why I got the 70-200F2.8IS from the start.

that's if you have the funds, then of course IS MARK II is the way to go. if you only have 1.4k to spare, then the headache comes in =D

 

[Anson]

that's if you have the funds, then of course IS MARK II is the way to go. if you only have 1.4k to spare, then the headache comes in =D

Why not just get the Mark 1? Does the launch of the Mark 2 suddenly make the Mark 1's F2.8 & IS a totally unusable? My motto is "The equip is only as good as it's wielder". haha

 

[lmk61]

Why not just get the Mark 1? Does the launch of the Mark 2 suddenly make the Mark 1's F2.8 & IS a totally unusable? My motto is "The equip is only as good as it's wielder". haha

well said.

 

[AbsolutKev]

I was shooting indoor during AFA (Anime Festival Asia) at the stage area. I had the 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and a tripod as well, which is as good as an IS IMO, since I get a stop reduction indirectly, but when you're maxing it out at 200mm, and under poor lighting conditions (I was doing ISO 800 or 400 I think), you come to one problem that IS cannot fix: Motion blur.

Even if you have the best IS in the world, you cannot stop your subject from causing the blur. I.e. the emcee I was photographing (Danny Choo, if you guys know him) was moving, and gesturing. The blurs caused by that cannot be solved by IS, but can be solved by a higher shutter speed, which can only be done with a wider aperture.

This is a very specific case, but please bear that in mind when choosing it if you feel that you might encounter this situation quite often.

U nailed it.

 

[Valkarian]

U nailed it.

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

 

[Turbonetics]

To freeze a water fountain has to depend on shutter speed..if u meant f3.5 is too slow for a faster shutter speed,then I said even f5.6 can be done to freeze a water fountain..

 

[Valkarian]

To freeze a water fountain has to depend on shutter speed..if u meant f3.5 is too slow for a faster shutter speed,then I said even f5.6 can be done to freeze a water fountain..

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).