70-200L/4.0 IS or 70-200L/2.8.. what will be the impact on my photography?

Started Sep 13, 2007 | Discussions thread
Flat view
lordofthelints Regular Member • Posts: 120
70-200L/4.0 IS or 70-200L/2.8.. what will be the impact on my photography?

Decisions... decisions...

I cannot decide between these two lenses. Both have their advantages and dislikes.
The 70-200L/2.8 IS is just way above my budget

I currently use a 20d combined with a EF 70-300/4.0-5.6 IS lens with suites me fine.. but still I would like to peep out those extra pixels which my 20d is capable of.

My thoughts:

The 2.8 version will give me the greatest bokeh, but... will the bokeh on the 4.0IS not be almost as good? Does anyone have examples regarding this?

Will the bokeh on 200mm not be about the same? And will the bokeh on 70mm be way better on the 2.8?

The 70-200/4.0 IS is lighter, but I do like to use my Gitzo tripod. So is it so light that I can live without the tripod collar? The 2.8 has it standard. But then I would have to drag around those extra pounds.

The 70-200/4.0 IS is said to be sharper than all other 70-200 versions, but is it WAY better? Or are bad copies compared to good ones? I want proof!

Sometimes I like to shoot table-tennis matches, 1/40 sec is just not done, the action than just isn't good enough. So IS will not give me benefits.

I could shoot iso 1600 or higher, and still use my 4.0L? or stay at 2.8 aperture and shoot iso800... So is the 4.0L version a good option for fast sports shooting? Show me the proof of that too please!

But of course most of my photo's is related to other categories: nature, birds, landscapes, people, macro. A like that extra punch there as well, or should I forget about the 70-200L/4.0 IS and use my 70-300 IS instead... could I live with the IQ difference?? The 70-200 will be faster because of the ring type USM, and I could crop or use an extender...

Night over night... over night... over night... these questions drive me totally crazy... but I want to get answers before I decide to kill my bank account.

  • weight versus quality.. so usability versus extra fitness

  • IS benefits. for sports..

  • and off course price (which is about the same for my two choices)

  • 70-200 IS versus 70-300 IS

This is my current lens line-up:
Tokina 12-24/4.0
Sigma EX 24-60/2.8
Canon EF 50mk2/1.8
Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro
Canon 70-300/4.0-5.6 IS

I am planning to go for a 40d as well next month, I heard about benefits of the viewfinder when a 2.8 lens is used. Will that imply that my viewfinder image is brighter with a 2.8L than with a 4.0L?

A long time I have compared specs, reviews of all lenses, but I realize now, when you choose a lens, it's not only the specs that matter, both are excellent. But it's the way you make you're photographs that matters.

A lot of questions, which will probably need about a thousand wise-men to answer.

This fool is taking the 20d and the 70-300 IS on a weekend trip, so don't be mad if I don't answer this weekend. But I hope to start a thourough discussion.

 lordofthelints's gear list:lordofthelints's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 7D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sony Alpha NEX-5N +74 more
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow