Which is Sharper ? or better ?

[rexscooby]

WOW!!! :bigeyes: steep

Ya , thought so too . Dunno why the price jump so much . Used to be $2850 only . Now suddenlt jump to $2980 . Elsewhere even worst . $3K plus ..

 

[Lightworkz]

I used to own the 2.8 IS but change to f4 due to the weight, it is half the weight of the 2.8. Sharpness is the same for both to me.

 

[thinkvision]

in 70mm , 2.8 version IS is better, in 135mm, both version perform same, in 200mm, F4 version IS is better...all in all, 2.8 IS version still best choice for those free lancer .... no regret...

F4 IS is only designed for old guy and travel people...

 

[calebk]

Ya , thought so too . Dunno why the price jump so much . Used to be $2850 only . Now suddenlt jump to $2980 . Elsewhere even worst . $3K plus ..

GST inc.

 

[xunjas]

i tried that 70-200mm f/2.8, simply great lens. very fast n very good bokeh. =)

 

[miniUltraman]

Ya , thought so too . Dunno why the price jump so much . Used to be $2850 only . Now suddenlt jump to $2980 . Elsewhere even worst . $3K plus ..

you should get from Oracle :lovegrin:

 

[rexscooby]

GST inc.

yeap , GST included . Is it still considered expensive ?

 

[miniUltraman]

yeap , GST included . Is it still considered expensive ?

since you have already bought.. maybe you won't want to know how much damage you have made... but well Cathay pay for rent so naturally it is more expensive to get there

 

[calebk]

yeap , GST included . Is it still considered expensive ?

Should have made myself clearer.

GST increase.

 

[xunjas]

since you have already bought.. maybe you won't want to know how much damage you have made... but well Cathay pay for rent so naturally it is more expensive to get there

n some of their rolexes as well.. =D

 

[benn8]

Don't mind if I side-track a little. Will 70-200 f/4L IS be sharper than 70-200 f/4L, assuming in normal-lighting condition?

 

[xunjas]

Don't mind if I side-track a little. Will 70-200 f/4L IS be sharper than 70-200 f/4L, assuming in normal-lighting condition?

u mean f/2.8 vs f/4 rite? i find the f/2.8 sharper if i adjust f/2.8 lens to aperture value f/4. some ppl say they are equally sharp @ f/4..

 

[2.8photography]

If you have the money to rip, I'd say go for the 70-200L f2.8 IS.

Since I do lots of indoor (esp low-light auditorium) shots, constant f2.8 aperture is a must for me since it helps me get that extra stop in shutter to minimize the hand shake. IS would also enable me to lower the ISO-E to get cleaner pictures.

Just my twocents

 

[calebk]

u mean f/2.8 vs f/4 rite? i find the f/2.8 sharper if i adjust f/2.8 lens to aperture value f/4. some ppl say they are equally sharp @ f/4..

Can you answer the question in context? I am very sure he knew very well he was asking for a comparison between the f/4L IS and the f/4L non-IS, not anything else.

Don't mind if I side-track a little. Will 70-200 f/4L IS be sharper than 70-200 f/4L, assuming in normal-lighting condition?

When you say assuming normal-lighting, I take it you are still using IS?

I have tried both, but not side by side. Sharpness-wise, there's nothing much to set them apart. Both are tack sharp wide open. IS will definitely give you a higher hit rate, and you will definitely get sharper shots due to the IS minimising effects of camera/hand-shake.

 

[syl]

I used to own both the f2.8 & f4.0 (both also non-IS) but I sold them to buy the f4.0IS. I was happy with it until I tried to shoot in dim conditions - then I found out that it is difficult for the lens to focus under this condition. Then I regretted selling my f2.8 because of low-light conditions. So what's the moral of the story? I don't know. You tell me. I think this thread can go on and on and on and no one will be the wiser. Sometimes you need the f2.8 and sometimes you don't! :dunno:

 

[black-11]

i've used the f2.8 one for shooting sports such as floorball and wakeboarding and i totally loved it! just too bad it wasn't mine though.. it's got the speed you need for fast shots so it totally depends on what you wanna use it for.

 

[TYM76]

Have had both lens, both lens are similar in sharpness in the centre while the F4 IS is sharper at the edges and borders.

But really, i am really impressed at both lens. F2.8 is excellent in sharpness (considering it is a F2.8 lens); F4 lens is amazingly sharp edge-to-edge (see to believe. Similar edge-to-edge sharpness as the 17-40L. These F4 lens are simply well made).

These small details aside, sharpness should not be a problem either lens, choose according to needs. Both lens will be well-loved

 

[kmtnaing]

Let's make this thread more confusing... :lovegrin:

I tried 70-200 f4 IS and f2.8 w/o IS at cathay marina bay tonight...

for IS and weight .. I love f4
for faster shutter speed... i want 2.8 w/o IS... (budget concern la ha :dunno:....) and this one has tripod mount free somemore... :think: hehehe..

Any idea???

 

[nikkie]

f/4 is sharper;
f/2.8 gives you f/2.8;

Canon simply doesn't allowo you to have the best of both world!!!

if that is the case, then it is quite sad for the users.
Normally you can safely assume lenses from the top two producers will make sure a f2.8 lens is the sharpest in its range.

 

[USM]

Ask yourself this simple question.

Are you going to print out your images? If yes, what is the size? 4R, 8R or Poster size.