Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 EF IS 2.8 vs 4.0

Go to last post
markleh said:
start from raw, you get a jpg,save and look at the size, now save as
gif, look at the size.

read up, you'll soon understand if you pay attention

in any case I post gifs
Click to expand...
You're the one that needs to read up. Here, I'll post numerous links proving why 99.99999% of us use superior JPGs for web images:

http://www.tips-tricks.com/gif_jpeg.asp

http://www.siriusweb.com/tutorials/gifvsjpg/

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/JPG_GIF_PNG.asp

http://www.mhwebcreations.com/articlegifjpeg.html

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/gif-jpg-png-whats-difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
  • "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - And that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
I've been following this discussion all along and have to ask (with all due respect) are you this caustic in the flesh or do you just not come across well expressing yourself in writing? Your style is very high-handed "in your face" which is quite adversarial. Everyone has their own experience and opinion. Those that are backed up with good data or examples are the credible ones worth paying attention to.

Bob
markleh said:
who told you that the 2.8 gives the same bokeh from 3.5 and up?

it's not true: the bokeh is slightly better all the time, not just
wide open. I said that when the lens shoots wide open then the
difference will be more visible because the cheaper zoom can't shoot
that open. But I also said that the two lenses do give pretty much a
very similar bokeh (not exactly the same) but similar.

Also on a full frame camera the difference will be (again) more visible.

Funny that you shoot your dog and tell (us) "thank God I had a good
lens otherwise I could've missed the shot".

I mean.. it's not like you are shooting some actor or singer.. the
dog was around anyway..

LOL

sometimes it gets comical...

the luminosity of the 2.8 may give the illusion that the cheaper lens
is about the same in terms of quality : because of the contrast and
most importantly the dark shadows. Well..

it's not. It's just a slower zoom, and cheaper.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
stephoto said:
I want to buy one of these 2 tele-zoom for landscapes.

which is better in term of resolution and contrast excluding other
factors like weigth, speed and out-of-focus background?
Click to expand...
Since you're going to be using this for landscapes I imagine you're going to use larger apertures than 2.8. So there's going to be no benefit from a 2.8. Infact there's no benefit from the IS either because you should be using a tripod with MLU.

If you do need the 2.8 for your landscape work, consider getting the non-IS version of the 2.8 which is supposed to have better IQ than the 2.8 IS.

If you don't need 2.8 and want the maximum IQ you can possible get with a 70-200, go with the f4 IS (not even the f4) which is a much newer, more refined lens in terms of every aspect.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
 
genotypewriter said:
stephoto said:
I want to buy one of these 2 tele-zoom for landscapes.

which is better in term of resolution and contrast excluding other
factors like weigth, speed and out-of-focus background?
Click to expand...
Since you're going to be using this for landscapes I imagine you're
going to use larger apertures than 2.8. So there's going to be no
benefit from a 2.8.
Click to expand...
This was what I was thinking but decided to read through half the debate above to see if anyone had mentioned it before posting!

My thoughts are that the f/4 IS would be more ideal due to it being lighter and the IS does come in handy for hand held jobs if such an opportunity arises. I believe the tripod collar doesn't come with the f/4 IS though.
 
why ?
you didn't know that?

I mean.. are you serious?
you really want me to believe that you did not know that?
didn't you say that you have or had those lenses? and you didn't know that?

then you really have no clue. you never had the two lenses. because if you really need to ask me that (and in some sarcastic way which is even comical..) then it means that you really didn't know.

I can't believe it. I was talking to myself? That's why many couldn't understand... I mean I understand others all excited about the slower and cheaper lens who may not know because they never had the chance to try the bigger one but you? you said that you do have all the experience with all those nice lenses in the picture you posted and now you need to ask this?

I'll take a moment now. I'm not going to tell you what I think about you right now. But I'm speechless.
 
it would be very easy to answer with just one word...

yes or no ?

Please do so.... insulting someone, or trying to redirect the conversation isn't working anymore.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
 
genotypewriter said:
stephoto said:
I want to buy one of these 2 tele-zoom for landscapes.

which is better in term of resolution and contrast excluding other
factors like weigth, speed and out-of-focus background?
Click to expand...
Since you're going to be using this for landscapes I imagine you're
going to use larger apertures than 2.8. So there's going to be no
benefit from a 2.8. Infact there's no benefit from the IS either
because you should be using a tripod with MLU.

If you do need the 2.8 for your landscape work, consider getting the
non-IS version of the 2.8 which is supposed to have better IQ than
the 2.8 IS.

If you don't need 2.8 and want the maximum IQ you can possible get
with a 70-200, go with the f4 IS (not even the f4) which is a much
newer, more refined lens in terms of every aspect.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
markleh said:
it could be that you know very little about photography and I can't
make you a photographer out of the blue simply because you are on a
forum.

Actually that's a possibility.

once again participating to a forum does not make you a photographer,
and doesn't give you a blank license to discuss with other
photographers about stuff that you don't know.

like I said before it shows. Trust me, it does.
Click to expand...
Whether you truly possess the superior knowledge you claim or not is incidental, really. It's your prissy attitude that seems to be the problem here. One might legitimately believe that you have major issues which you believe can be worked out in this forum. If that is the case, may I suggest counseling? Airing your issues here can only be counter-productive. Negative behaviours feed on themselves. But I assume, since you know everything, you know this as well, and have just decided against it (which proves you don't really know everything?).

Good luck!
 
markleh said:
why ?
you didn't know that?

I mean.. are you serious?
you really want me to believe that you did not know that?
didn't you say that you have or had those lenses? and you didn't know
that?
then you really have no clue. you never had the two lenses. because
if you really need to ask me that (and in some sarcastic way which is
even comical..) then it means that you really didn't know.

I can't believe it. I was talking to myself? That's why many couldn't
understand... I mean I understand others all excited about the slower
and cheaper lens who may not know because they never had the chance
to try the bigger one but you? you said that you do have all the
experience with all those nice lenses in the picture you posted and
now you need to ask this?

I'll take a moment now. I'm not going to tell you what I think about
you right now. But I'm speechless.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. If any lens produces a false exposure, then that would be a flaw in the lens. As professionals, we want accuracy, not quirkiness, in our tools. You should have your lens checked.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
when used at close distance the F2.8 is much better, so the F2.8 was the keeper.

At far distance they are pretty much equal at F4 but the F2.8 give a better bokeh and of course it is F2.8 so twice the shutter speed.

for landscape it might make a difference or not, depending on what effect you're looking for.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
markleh said:
it could be that you know very little about photography and I can't
make you a photographer out of the blue simply because you are on a
forum.

Actually that's a possibility.

once again participating to a forum does not make you a photographer,
and doesn't give you a blank license to discuss with other
photographers about stuff that you don't know.

like I said before it shows. Trust me, it does.
Click to expand...
You're the only one in this thread who is making unfounded claims. And as far as being a photographer, we can at least look at each other's work. Your website show a total of 3 photographs, all of which are poorly lit snapshots of a few runway models backstage at a fashion show, I presume. So if I were you, I would think twice about questioning someone's status as a photographer (at least until you get some proper photography up on your own site).

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
actualy I did not test the F2.8 vs the F4 for this but he may be right.

with the 400mm vs the 100-400mm, if I was shooting wide open with both at the same target with the same light, I was getting 1/1250s with the prime and 1/1000s with the zoom.

they looked exposed the same. This was consistantly the case and I was getting slightly faster shutter speed at the same aperture with the prime. I thought it was strange because both were at F4 and so they should have received the same amount of light but it seem that other people have noticed the same thing.
mmullen said:
markleh said:
also the luminosity of the 2.8 helps, and it shows.
Click to expand...
LOL! You are still using that term that you refuse to define. You
have said that the f2.8 has more luminosity than the f4 even when
used at the same aperture. That statement shows how misguided you
are. "Luminosity" is a measure of the brightness of something. When
both lenses are @ f4 they both have the same luminosity.

I think you are confusing the lower contrast of the f2.8 with more
luminosity. Lower contrast will make the shadows less dark but they
will not contain more detail because the extra light in the shadows
is stray light from the brighter parts of the scene.

Improving contrast is something lens designers constantly strive for
because it allows colors to be richer and blacks to be more pure and
allows shadow detail to come through without being obscured by stray
light from the brighter parts of the scene.

--
Mike Mullen
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
ChrisDM said:
markleh said:
what are you laughing about?

the luminosity of the 2.8 is superior.
the F4 is slower and the pictures are darker.
Click to expand...
The pictures are not darker if you adjust your shutter speed to
account for the more narrow aperture, by one stop exactly if you're
shooting wide open.. The viewfinder is darker though but of course
this doesn't affect the final image.
Click to expand...
yead except that when you do the AF the F4 cannot open up at F2.8 like the F2.8 does.
ChrisDM said:
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
ChrisDM said:
markleh said:
why ?
you didn't know that?

I mean.. are you serious?
you really want me to believe that you did not know that?
didn't you say that you have or had those lenses? and you didn't know
that?
then you really have no clue. you never had the two lenses. because
if you really need to ask me that (and in some sarcastic way which is
even comical..) then it means that you really didn't know.

I can't believe it. I was talking to myself? That's why many couldn't
understand... I mean I understand others all excited about the slower
and cheaper lens who may not know because they never had the chance
to try the bigger one but you? you said that you do have all the
experience with all those nice lenses in the picture you posted and
now you need to ask this?

I'll take a moment now. I'm not going to tell you what I think about
you right now. But I'm speechless.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. If any lens produces a false exposure, then that
would be a flaw in the lens. As professionals, we want accuracy, not
quirkiness, in our tools. You should have your lens checked.
Click to expand...
then wich one is flawed? the one that produce the faster shutter speed but correct exposure of the one that produce the slower shutter speed and correct exposure?
ChrisDM said:
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
Daniella said:
actualy I did not test the F2.8 vs the F4 for this but he may be right.

with the 400mm vs the 100-400mm, if I was shooting wide open with
both at the same target with the same light, I was getting 1/1250s
with the prime and 1/1000s with the zoom.
Click to expand...
That was most likely due to light falloff with the zoom. I see the same phenomena when testing lenses in a controlled lighting environment. Primes will usually meter slightly faster than a zoom at the same FL. With my 300f4L+1.4x vs my 100~400 they will meter the same @f5.6 (420 vs 400mm) but you can see the obvious loss of peripheral brightness in the thumbnails of zoom images. This loss of brightness can be enough to affect metering. At 300mm bare without the 1.4x it will meter at 1/100 where the 100~400 needs 1/80 for the same aperture. The difference is by removing the 1.4x I took 5 elements out of the optical formula for the 300 which is allowing for a more uniform brightness in the frame.

Bob
Daniella68313 said:
they looked exposed the same. This was consistantly the case and I
was getting slightly faster shutter speed at the same aperture with
the prime. I thought it was strange because both were at F4 and so
they should have received the same amount of light but it seem that
other people have noticed the same thing.
mmullen said:
markleh said:
also the luminosity of the 2.8 helps, and it shows.
Click to expand...
LOL! You are still using that term that you refuse to define. You
have said that the f2.8 has more luminosity than the f4 even when
used at the same aperture. That statement shows how misguided you
are. "Luminosity" is a measure of the brightness of something. When
both lenses are @ f4 they both have the same luminosity.

I think you are confusing the lower contrast of the f2.8 with more
luminosity. Lower contrast will make the shadows less dark but they
will not contain more detail because the extra light in the shadows
is stray light from the brighter parts of the scene.

Improving contrast is something lens designers constantly strive for
because it allows colors to be richer and blacks to be more pure and
allows shadow detail to come through without being obscured by stray
light from the brighter parts of the scene.

--
Mike Mullen
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience'
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
Daniella said:
ChrisDM said:
markleh said:
why ?
you didn't know that?

I mean.. are you serious?
you really want me to believe that you did not know that?
didn't you say that you have or had those lenses? and you didn't know
that?
then you really have no clue. you never had the two lenses. because
if you really need to ask me that (and in some sarcastic way which is
even comical..) then it means that you really didn't know.

I can't believe it. I was talking to myself? That's why many couldn't
understand... I mean I understand others all excited about the slower
and cheaper lens who may not know because they never had the chance
to try the bigger one but you? you said that you do have all the
experience with all those nice lenses in the picture you posted and
now you need to ask this?

I'll take a moment now. I'm not going to tell you what I think about
you right now. But I'm speechless.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. If any lens produces a false exposure, then that
would be a flaw in the lens. As professionals, we want accuracy, not
quirkiness, in our tools. You should have your lens checked.
Click to expand...
then wich one is flawed? the one that produce the faster shutter
speed but correct exposure of the one that produce the slower shutter
speed and correct exposure?
Click to expand...
Neither. He is saying that "the pictures are darker" with the f4 version given the same exposure vs th 70-200 2.8IS. That means that either his f4 is giving incorrect exposure or his 2.8 is giving incorrect exposure.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 vs RF 70-200 f/4 L with digital zoom?
Replies
17
Views
6K
BirdShooter7
B
R
Canon RF 14-35 f/4L vs. EF 16-35 f/4L
Replies
8
Views
839
buellom
B
fpix
EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM vs. EF 180 f/3.5LUSM
Replies
5
Views
667
dluery
D
P
70-200 f/2.8 + Extender vs. 100-400 for Wildlife
2
Replies
31
Views
703
Tazz93
Tazz93
D
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS
Replies
1
Views
2K
diness
D

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