Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 EF IS 2.8 vs 4.0

Go to last post
the 70-200 f4 vs 70-200 2.8 and whether, if one does not print "large" or print at all, will one notice the difference on a 4 x 6 or resampled down web photo.

What are you talking about ?

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
of your post was "how big you print"

don't play with me when you don't know what to say. Because I'm not stupid and I know a thing or two about photography.

being "smart" is fine but being "smart" with me won't do.

really.
 
It's time for you to elaborate what has been said now.

you may agree or disagree

but you need to elaborate on your own first

and that's a legitimate answer.
 
I think it is obvious what I said and what I was talking about.

Let me help you....

I responded to something Chris wrote

.....The fact is that most of the amateurs that come here to learn don't make the size of prints necessary for this "100% crop" sharpness to even be relevant..........

I mentioned that I once started a thread asking people here "what size did they print".... I was supporting his contention that for the vast majority here, it appears, tht all they do is pixel peep and post their cat and dog pictures on the web. In real life, prints, the differences between the 2 lenses are probably not notieable.

Then you come back about somethig about FF and crop etc. which, frankly, I thought you misposted, responded to me in error since I could not see the relevence to what I wrote. I still don't.

I reminded you that, as far as I could tell, e ere talking about the IQ differences of the 2 lenses.

Then you shoot back saying....

oops you jut moved your post elsewhere..... I am not going to waste any more time.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
you probably want to say something but I definitely lost you at the middle of your last post.

like I said you better don't play with me: stand up straight and say what you have to say, once and for all.

you are driving me literally crazy with the repeated posts and links to what others said and in the end I don't understand what your original question (if you ever had any) actually was.

can I see a sample of your photography before you waste any more of your time talking about photography?

that will help (me to understand you better)
 
in a form of a question or two, or three, so you know what to respond to..... assume the same camera body.

1) does it make a difference to which lens one should buy if no one can tell the difference on a down sampled, PP'd, web posted jpg ?

2) does it make a difference to which lens one should buy if no one can tell the difference in an 8 x 10.

3) If the question is posed by someone that just posts jpg's and prints small prints, (the majority here... just a guess) why should they care if one lens is capable of producing better 24 x 36's, something the user is never going to do. Based on this , aren't the 2 lenses equal in IQ, based on their intended use ?

This, 2.8 is a better lens than the 4, or vice versa, debate often leaves out the most important criteria, intended use. Some just don't seem to understand that.

Anyway.... I have more to say, but that' for another time.

All the best.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
a lot of it (actually)

with the only exception of the web a quality lens will make a difference, even on 4x6

the web (say 500x300 or so) may hide the lesser quality, but it will still show. because when you sharpen for the web, a better picture will sharpen better.

look: the limits of the 70-200 f4IS will appear (kind of evindent) when you need a good quality lens on natural light, or stage lighting (set for 2.8/800 ISO for example)

there the 2.8 version wins. (just like a better camera wins as well). those are situations where you'll gladly take advantage of all the possible improvements you can get.)

in terms of clarity first of all, but also in terms of harsh shadows, too much contrast and so on that you get with bthe f4IS

Ive been using the f4IS in those conditions and I immediately switched back to the 2.8 .

back to you I was wrong judging your questions.

Sorry.
 
Maybe some of my posts tend to be too cryptic, hence the misunderstanding.

Am I safe to say that if I have no desire to shoot low light, beyond the usefull (acceptable ISO) that the f4 is as good, maybe better than the 2.8 ?

I have a personal interest beyond just the debate.

I have ordered the f4 IS. I do not have any intention (I have been involved in photography for decades, on and off) of using it for sports, low light (indoor events) and such.

It will be used for street candids, light assisted portraits outdoor and indoor.That will be 100% of it's use. I print 11 x 14 regularly and 11 x 17's once in awhile.

Bokeh, aside, there is no way I see the 2.8 being the better lens, for me. I stopped shooting completely a few decades ago because I got tired of dragging 15-20 lbs of camera equipment on my travels. I'm a bit older now ;-), and I KNOW I would not walk around with the 2.8 for long. Fortuntely ithe f4 IS is also less expensive than the 2.8.

For my use, I do not feel like I am giving anything up by not getting the 2.8

Do you agree ?
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
markleh said:
clarity means more light coming in (with the 2.8IS) but also more
aperture required by the darker one (the F4IS in this case) to
produce the same picture.
Click to expand...
If you're using different camera settings (e.g. ISO), apertures, lighting, focal lengths, exposures, framing, I don't think two pictures can be called the same. My question is, if using identical settings... mainly identical aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal lengths (for framing)... is the 2.8 IS image brighter? I.e after the picture's taken? In other words, if you're in aperture priority with aperture, ISO, framing/length, light, all the same, would the camera use two different shutter speeds for the two lenses?

I could imagine a small difference in terms of brightness because of different optics and construction but it shouldn't be anywhere near to require a different shutter speed for the same exposure.

Recently, I did a test with using my 85 1.2 II (yes, the light swallower) and my 70-200 f4 IS, with both at f/5.6, everything else equal I couldn't tell a real difference in brightness (or sharpness btw) after accounting for the natural change of sunlight at that time.
markleh said:
and more aperture means also more DOF
Click to expand...
Ah I get it now I think... by "aperture" you're referring to the f-number... the aperture is actually proportional to the inverse of the f number. So a smaller aperture means a larger f number... and a larger f number means you get more DOF.

But we're way past this stage of the pros and cons. The 2.8 IS is the only f/2.8 out of the two.
markleh said:
but I don't think that it depends on the design (and size of the
glass) of the lens(es).

with my surprise I saw the opposite in the case of the 24-70 and 24-105
the F4 lens was actually "brighter" then the 2.8
often requiring less aperture. Hard to believe but true.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to offend but you have to show evidence because what you just said is one of the most unusual things that's contradictory to all we know.
markleh said:
Still talking about the two 70-200 in topic the 2.8 gives more
clarity requiring less aperture.
Click to expand...
This is where things can get pedantic and can mislead someone. Aperture and f-numbers are related but they're inversely proportional, as I mentioned earlier.
markleh said:
back to the F4IS:
I need to clarify: Like I said many times already I find the little
one "adorable" , a pure talent most of the time. It's a jewel that
can give stunning (and I mean it) pictures if the lighting is good.
The three pictures on my site (posted in here) all come from the F4IS
just to testify how much I appreciate that little white one.

I love that lens. ut also becouse I love it I must tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Well my 70-200 f4 IS was my favourite until my 85 1.2 II came along... the latter puts many lenses to shame. I'm still a big supporter of the f4 IS over the overrated 2.8 IS.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
 
fwiw: I rented both to try them out, the key factor for me was the size/weight of the 2.8, also the 4 (with my hands) beat the 2.8 for indoor candids (not a real factor in the decision process- typically use 50mm and 85mm for that) as I couldn't hold the 2.8 as steady as the 4 and that was a bigger factor than the extra light (some of the test shots were taken in the 1/10 to 1/3 second exposure range)
 
of course I agree. I bought the little one, after all :)

let me give you three samples of the conditions I was talking about. all 800 ISO/F4

don't judge the sharpness (they are gifs) but the shadows, the clarity etc. all on stage lighting .. you know what I mean.

for streets and with a fill flash this lens will excel. Also don't worry about the bokeh because it gives plenty.

We are discussing a lens, we must (try at least) to keep the enthusiasm under control and advice others about the limitations (if any).

but this lens is a pure talent. No questions. Just keep the camera steady because you will feel like you have a prime on.. :)







that said just get it.. it's a good lens.
 
very nice..... the other 2 aren't shabby, either.

I completely missed the part... that you have the f4.....lol

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
genotypewriter said:
genotypewriter said:
clarity means more light coming in (with the 2.8IS) but also more
aperture required by the darker one (the F4IS in this case) to
produce the same picture.
Click to expand...
If you're using different camera settings (e.g. ISO), apertures,
lighting, focal lengths, exposures, framing, I don't think two
pictures can be called the same. My question is, if using identical
settings... mainly identical aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal
lengths (for framing)... is the 2.8 IS image brighter? I.e after the
picture's taken? In other words, if you're in aperture priority with
aperture, ISO, framing/length, light, all the same, would the camera
use two different shutter speeds for the two lenses?

I could imagine a small difference in terms of brightness because of
different optics and construction but it shouldn't be anywhere near
to require a different shutter speed for the same exposure.

Recently, I did a test with using my 85 1.2 II (yes, the light
swallower) and my 70-200 f4 IS, with both at f/5.6, everything else
equal I couldn't tell a real difference in brightness (or sharpness
btw) after accounting for the natural change of sunlight at that time.
genotypewriter said:
and more aperture means also more DOF
Click to expand...
Ah I get it now I think... by "aperture" you're referring to the
f-number... the aperture is actually proportional to the inverse of
the f number. So a smaller aperture means a larger f number... and a
larger f number means you get more DOF.

But we're way past this stage of the pros and cons. The 2.8 IS is the
only f/2.8 out of the two.
genotypewriter said:
but I don't think that it depends on the design (and size of the
glass) of the lens(es).

with my surprise I saw the opposite in the case of the 24-70 and 24-105
the F4 lens was actually "brighter" then the 2.8
often requiring less aperture. Hard to believe but true.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to offend but you have to show evidence because what you
just said is one of the most unusual things that's contradictory to
all we know.
genotypewriter said:
Still talking about the two 70-200 in topic the 2.8 gives more
clarity requiring less aperture.
Click to expand...
This is where things can get pedantic and can mislead someone.
Aperture and f-numbers are related but they're inversely
proportional, as I mentioned earlier.
genotypewriter said:
back to the F4IS:
I need to clarify: Like I said many times already I find the little
one "adorable" , a pure talent most of the time. It's a jewel that
can give stunning (and I mean it) pictures if the lighting is good.
The three pictures on my site (posted in here) all come from the F4IS
just to testify how much I appreciate that little white one.

I love that lens. ut also becouse I love it I must tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Well my 70-200 f4 IS was my favourite until my 85 1.2 II came
along... the latter puts many lenses to shame. I'm still a big
supporter of the f4 IS over the overrated 2.8 IS.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
Click to expand...
I missed your reply because I was interacting with another poster.

yeah the clarity of the 70-200 2.8IS will give better shadows

the opposite happens with the 24-70 and the 24-105. Dunno why.

a zoom can't be compared to a prime, let alone one of the best ever made like the 85 1.2 (I have the markI not the II)

also because the destination: a 2.8 zoom must perform under difficult lighting conditions. A zoom (by definition) is a "compromise"

what part of "clarity" is still not clear?

I don't want to keep repeating myself, that's all
 
do much. The guys setting the lighting make everything look good. Even a "darkish" with harsh shadows F4 lens :)

and I am not the only one shooting with both the f4 and 2.8 ... many actually use them both, maybe for different purposes.

I changed my mind, please don't get offended now: if I had to choose one and one only I'd go for the 2.8 version... it's more reliable.

sure it's heavier, it attracts attentions (a lot of it), it takes a bigger bag to carry and all that.

but in the end it is the better lens.

unless the size is really really important...
 
but it's a deal breaker for me. I wish it wasn't but I know I would be miserable having to drag the 2.8 around on a 40D for hours on end. I'm not all that looking forward to this aspect, even with the f4. I also would prefer and would pay more if it was black.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
You and I have very similar needs and history. I too lost much of my interest in photography lugging 2 film bodies and 3 f2.8L zooms along with 30 or 40 rolls of film through airport security. The 10D changed all that and my interest was rekindled.

Like you, I now shoot with the f4LIS along with the 24~105 and EFS 10~22 on a 40D. This is (for my style of shooting and needs) a perfect kit. I compared the 70~200f4LIS extensively against my 80~200f2.8L (magic drainpipe) which is a sharper lens than the either of the current f2.8 versions. Except for the extra stop and bokeh at f2.8 (I forgot to mention that I also carry a 50f1.4) the f4LIS is as good or better in every category (the drainpipe has since been sold). The f4LIS is an amazing lens with the only weakness being sharpness at it's MFD which is probably closer than it should've been but that was most likely a marketing ploy. It also remains critically sharp with the 1.4XII.

Next on the block will most likely be my 16~35f2.8L and 28~70f2.8L. With the new kit I don't use them and they just take up space in my closet.

Oh and BTW, I routinely print at 13x19 as I own both the S9000 and i9900 Canon printers.

Enjoy!

Bob
Bohdan said:
Maybe some of my posts tend to be too cryptic, hence the
misunderstanding.

Am I safe to say that if I have no desire to shoot low light, beyond
the usefull (acceptable ISO) that the f4 is as good, maybe better
than the 2.8 ?

I have a personal interest beyond just the debate.

I have ordered the f4 IS. I do not have any intention (I have been
involved in photography for decades, on and off) of using it for
sports, low light (indoor events) and such.

It will be used for street candids, light assisted portraits outdoor
and indoor.That will be 100% of it's use. I print 11 x 14 regularly
and 11 x 17's once in awhile.

Bokeh, aside, there is no way I see the 2.8 being the better lens,
for me. I stopped shooting completely a few decades ago because I got
tired of dragging 15-20 lbs of camera equipment on my travels. I'm a
bit older now ;-), and I KNOW I would not walk around with the 2.8
for long. Fortuntely ithe f4 IS is also less expensive than the 2.8.

For my use, I do not feel like I am giving anything up by not getting
the 2.8

Do you agree ?
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
in case increase the ISO . that will ease up the shadows.

good luck and enjoy the F4IS

thanks to some of us now you know how to use it better, the goods and the less goods.

because unlike somebody else here in this forum (telling you that it doesn't matter and stuff) I only wanted your success, not make you feel miserable and buy a 70-300 instead (again because it doesn't matter) so I will feel better.

be aware of the so called "friends" giving you advise because they want you to share their mistakes.

LOL
 
markleh said:
I missed your reply because I was interacting with another poster.

yeah the clarity of the 70-200 2.8IS will give better shadows

the opposite happens with the 24-70 and the 24-105. Dunno why.

a zoom can't be compared to a prime, let alone one of the best ever
made like the 85 1.2 (I have the markI not the II)
also because the destination: a 2.8 zoom must perform under difficult
lighting conditions. A zoom (by definition) is a "compromise"

what part of "clarity" is still not clear?

I don't want to keep repeating myself, that's all
Click to expand...
How do you measure this quality that you call "clarity"? Could you give two reasonably comparable examples (one from each lens) that contain different amounts of clarity?

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top