Why choose a f2.8 lens over f4?

[lcheowl]

One very good example of a not-so-good bokeh from a prime lens will be the Canon F1.8 II.

I feel sony prime F1.8 bokeh is better than the Canon F1.8 II.

 

[Rashkae]

I feel sony prime F1.8 bokeh is better than the Canon F1.8 II.

But the Minolta f/1.7 bokeh is horrible. Best bokeh is still the Sony/Minolta 135mm f/2.8 STF.

 

[Kenneth67C]

Slight detour, nothing on subject matter.

Your profile name is Kenneth but your gender is female !?!

Hey, I didn't put that in...LOL. There's something wrong with the settings I've been trying to tell the admin.

 

[Kenneth67C]

Answer still doesn't change, why are you surprised at the male female things?

Bro, don't need to go there...I'm definitely NOT female...this is driving me nuts....

 

[Kenneth67C]

Ok since you mentioned, I actually wanted to compare the 70-200 but just wanted to ask the question in a general manner cos it suited what I want to know abt my tamron 17-50 f2.8 and canon 17-40 f4L.

I've used both lenses before...if on crop, stick to the Tamron it is a very nice sharp lens, plus it has some decent macro capability.
The 17-40f4L is also a very nice lens, focuses extremely fast, and great for candids - if you plan to go FF, then upgrading is a good idea, else stick to the Tamron.

Of the 70-200 lenses whether f4 or f2.8, all are very sharp, some sharper than others. For the f4 version, the IS is the better lens, while for the f2.8, the latest greatest and also most expensive mark II is better. The f2.8s are all generally heavy so be prepared.

While not all primes have great bokeh, if you are looking at this price range, also consider lenses like the 85L, Sigma 85, 135L, and the Sigma 150macro - all of which have good bokeh and are really excellent for portraits. Whether better than the 70-200, you be the judge since this is very subjective. You can also consider the Sigma 50, which is has nice bokeh too. Of course if you want flexibility, then your only choice is the zoom.