70-200mm L IS f2.8 II v f4 for bokeh

Hi,

I'm about to invest in the now relatively attractively priced 5D MK II and a couple of lenses. My interests are portraits (children mainly) where I love using shallow depth of field, and landscapes.

I am planning to buy the 24-70mm f2.8 and then a 70-200mm to cover the range. I can afford either the f2.8 or the f4 IS 70-200mm zooms but what I really need is portability and the ability to get decent bokeh. The f2.8 is a lot of glass as well as a lot of cash, whereas the f4 seems much easier to carry around.

Reading the reviews both are very well thought of in terms of sharpness, and one comment I read of the f4 was that this lens is not a poor man's f2.8. Clearly it won't be as good in low light as the f2.8 but I am thinking that at the longer focal lengths in the range, the DOF is going to be pretty shallow at f4 anyway - so do I really need the f2.8?

Using a calculator I worked out that at say 135mm focal length and the subject at 12 feet, f4 gives a DOF of 0.56ft (which my simple mind thinks of as the depth of a person!). Would that not give me good background blur?

Similarly at 200mm focal length, and the subject at 18 feet, f4 gives a similar DOF (0.56ft).

Can any of you 70-200mm f4 L IS owners out there post any comments on their experience - any example images?

Thank you.

--
Phil

Hi Phil,

I have only had the f4 IS since Friday but I like it - the Bokeh seems to get a bit busy in the background - but not offensively so and weirdly it's superb in the foreground!

I went with this in the end for the IS and weatherproofing - I know that at some point in the future I will go with the 2.8 IS II version - this way I will keep the f4 as well as a walkaround/good light lens.

Here's an couple of examples









from this weekend (the sun was low, it's not flash!) ignore the vignetting, I added that in post.

Good luck - I'll let you know if I see anything major at Focus today too.
--
James
http://photos.jamestux.com
http://photos.flickr.com/jamestux
http://blog.jamestux.com

Jamie, those are very nice thanks for posting.

Have a great time at Focus, and thanks for any info.

--
Phil

I know that many love the f2.8. I purchased the f4.0 IS for the weight difference and have been very happy with it. I am posting seven shots with all info. They may help you to understand the bokeh for the f4.0.
Best,
Mo

Hi Mo

Those are exactly what I am hoping for, thanks so much for posting. Also those aren't all taken at f4 and still great.

Marvellous!
--
Phil

Phil,

Remember that the closer your lens is to the subject the less depth of field. Also, the longer the lens, the less depth of field. I love the 70mm side for portraiture on my 50D. With your sensor, I would think that 80-100 would be your best portrait range, however, the 200 side will give you less depth and a softer background. I think that you are in a win win situation with either of the two lenses that you are considering.
Best,
Mo

Mo50 said:

Phil,

Remember that the closer your lens is to the subject the less depth of field. Also, the longer the lens, the less depth of field. I love the 70mm side for portraiture on my 50D. With your sensor, I would think that 80-100 would be your best portrait range, however, the 200 side will give you less depth and a softer background. I think that you are in a win win situation with either of the two lenses that you are considering.
Best,
Mo

Click to expand...

I think the subject distance is key (i.e. keeping it close). If you have control over that, you will have no problem getting a nice narrow depth of field with a diffuse background with the f/4, especially with a full frame camera. Also, I don't know if you have had a chance to actually feel the weight and size of the f/2.8 version Phil but it is much, much more of a beast to carry around than the f/4, really day and night difference. I tried out the f/2.8 version first and was kind of shocked. I'm even used to lugging around the 400L f/5.6 but it's another step beyond that even. I went with the substantially lighter and smaller f/4 IS and have been very happy with it.

thanks Mo I am really sold on this lens now. In fact I think I might buy it with the 5d II tomorrow and delay the 24-70 purchase whilst it becomes clear how much the mk II will be and how good the new tamron IS one is.

Great advice, thanks.
-
Phil

Also, I don't know if you have had a chance to actually feel the weight and size of the f/2.8 version Phil but it is much, much more of a beast to carry around than the f/4, really day and night difference. I tried out the f/2.8 version first and was kind of shocked. I'm even used to lugging around the 400L f/5.6 but it's another step beyond that even. I went with the substantially lighter and smaller f/4 IS and have been very happy with it.

I've not felt the weight but I was shocked when I saw it in a local shop this weekend. I recently sold my 100-400mm because it was too heavy to get regular use, so I won't be making the same mistake again.

It is really great to hear owners of the f4 are so pleased with it.

Thanks
--
Phil

Hello Kidcharles,

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but you don't list an email and you mentioned here and in some other threads that you use a 400 5.6 and a 600mm. Can I ask you what tripod you are using with those. I just picked up a 300mm f4.0 L and plan to add an x1.4 L. Hopefully the future will bring longer lenses. The choice is between the Manfrotto 055 and the 057. The 057 is a big machine, but I am guessing that the 055 will not be stable enough for long lenses and/or long exposures.
Thanks,
Mo
[email protected]

Phil,
I wish you luck with your new rig. Have a wonderful time.
Mo

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=38050793

Short answer: the two zooms are very close.

As you can see, that 70-200 f/4 L IS narrowly beats both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and the 135L (!) when its wide open compared to the two other lenses stopped down to f/4.

135L is overall the king of the game, but the two zooms do well in - and even better - in some circumstances.

The increased length of the zooms do not make up for the inherent advantage of the f/2.0 of the prime - at all.

Good luck with your choice!

Thanks for the feedback Phil, I was going to post an unprocessed portrait too but I see you've made your mind up!

I didn't see any amazing deals on lenses but the 5d2 was 1399 everywhere for a graded one, the 1d4 was only 2799 at calumet too!

good luck with yours!
--
James
http://photos.jamestux.com
http://photos.flickr.com/jamestux
http://blog.jamestux.com

Mo50 said:

Hello Kidcharles,

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but you don't list an email and you mentioned here and in some other threads that you use a 400 5.6 and a 600mm. Can I ask you what tripod you are using with those. I just picked up a 300mm f4.0 L and plan to add an x1.4 L. Hopefully the future will bring longer lenses. The choice is between the Manfrotto 055 and the 057. The 057 is a big machine, but I am guessing that the 055 will not be stable enough for long lenses and/or long exposures.

Click to expand...

I actually don't have anything longer than my 400 f/5.6 and I usually handhold or use a monopod with it. I did use a new tripod I got recently with it to help frame some live view shoots with my Kenko 1.4x Pro teleconverter. It's a Sirui T-1005X, which is not one of those big sturdy ones but it is surprisingly solid for a 5-section travel size tripod. It's probably not quite as stable as some of the heavier types but I had good results with it. My tripod experience overall is pretty limited.

I never use anything but f2.8 for portraits and sports. I find going back to f4 makes BIG difference in isolation and bokeh.

Weight nor size is not an issue for me.

Both lenses are great. Just comes down to do you want to choose tight dof or not?

Just to counter those who seem to suggest its a big deal if you have the one or other:

I'd be delighted if I achieved anything like that - thanks very much for posting, superb!

--
Phil

Agree, it's not that much of a difference. I have the Canon 200 prime rather than the zoom, and the 70-200 f4 IS. Yes you can see the difference between the apertures but I'd be scratching my head if someone based their purchase on just that small difference.

If the f2.8 is needed for faster shutter speeds in low light, that's a much more useful difference in my opinion. A full stop in high ISO settings makes a pretty big difference in some cameras. Depends on the model of course.

The bokeh of the f/4 is fine, if the background is far. But if it is relatively close, the bokeh is really bad - double lines, looks "busy".

Peter 13 said:

The bokeh of the f/4 is fine, if the background is far. But if it is relatively close, the bokeh is really bad - double lines, looks "busy".

Click to expand...

The bokeh of the 70-200mm f4 L USM is very smooth. If one goes for the smoothest bokeh, choose the older non-IS version.

maiaibing said:

Short answer: the two zooms are very close

As you can see, that 70-200 f/4 L IS narrowly beats both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and the 135L (!) when its wide open compared to the two other lenses stopped down to f/4.

Click to expand...

Very close? I would think not. The resolution of the 70-200f4IS is quite poor (i.e. zero) at f2.8, f3.2 & f3.5. It does not generate any decent background blur unless the subject is a good distance from the background and the focal length is approaching 200mm. Virtually useless for this purpose near the 70mm end. The f2.8LIS II has no such limitations. This apart, the f2.8 gives a brighter viewfinder and activates additional sensitivity in the AF system. To me, if truth be told, the f4 IS is little more than a slow alternative to the 70-200f2.8L IS II for consideration only if the budget won't stretch.

My advice to the OP is to buy the f2.8L IS II. Costs more and weighs a little more but is a much better lens.