DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 Flipin' and flopin'

Started 3 weeks ago | Discussions thread
spec68 Contributing Member • Posts: 533
Re: RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 Flipin' and flopin'
1

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?…

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

Your head is correct for your primary use case. No discussion necessary. Personally very happy I went with the F/4 version. Lusted a bit over the 2.8 but it would have been an idiotic GASsy buy for me. I think if one has to think hard between two versions of anything the justification for the more expensive one must be flimsy

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow