Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 f4 IS or f2.8 IS

Go to last post
Great question - I know for me the 2.8 was/is worth the difference. Heck, I probably would pick the 2.8 non-IS over the f4 IS simply because most of what I shot moves and the IS doesn't do that much for me in that scenario but the extra stop of light can sometimes make the difference.
dprsok said:
'is the f2.8 worth the extra $800.?'

Are you asking if it's worth it to me? Or, to you?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
Click to expand...
 
Only buy a 2.8 when you really need the 2.8 for night or portrait with blurred background.

The F4.0 lens is lighter, better wide open, better at 200mm. The 2.8 is a big monster, somitimes drawing too much attention when on the street.

I use both on 5DII . The 2.8 can be used with the 1.4 converter, but 2x converter is too much, especially at tele settings, where you need it for.

On a crop cam 2.8 gives you a better background blur, but 2.8 seems optimised for full frame.
 
I was faced with the same question. I chose the 4IS.

1. It wasn't for the money, it was for the weight. The 2.8 is almost 800 grams more, that's a pound and half. It may not sound like much, but I have some right elbow injury and when I have to lift the 3 kilos or 7 pounds for 6 to 8 hours... camera + lens + flash

2. The optical quality of the 4IS is fantastic, the 2.8 is "only" excellent.

3. Most of my shooting is done at f/5.6+

4. I don't do too much dark, dark focusing where I would need the f/2.8 to focus.

--
Thanks
http://foto-biz.com
The Business of Being a Photographer -- Lightroom Q&A
 
For me, I would go with the F 2.8 w/o the IS. Money is an option for me so the extra cash does tend to hinder me at this point. I tend to shoot a lot of high school sports and theater. Both involve moving subjects in lower than optimal light. The IS really doesn't help me that much whereas the extra stop of light means that I can increase my shutter speed and stop the action better.
 
elfroggio said:
I was faced with the same question. I chose the 4IS.
Click to expand...
Same here
elfroggio said:
1. It wasn't for the money, it was for the weight. The 2.8 is almost 800 grams more, that's a pound and half. It may not sound like much, but I have some right elbow injury and when I have to lift the 3 kilos or 7 pounds for 6 to 8 hours... camera + lens + flash
Click to expand...
Same here
elfroggio said:
2. The optical quality of the 4IS is fantastic, the 2.8 is "only" excellent.
Click to expand...
I wouln't know...

All in all, I chose the f/4 because of its being lighter and smaller. More convenient to carry on all day long.
Good luck with the decision.

Regards
--
Jaime

http://jaimsthesweetspot.wordpress.com/
 
I agree. If you're going to ask this question, some details would be great. Will you be carrying it around all day shooting in the streets, tourist type stuff and just want the reach of the 70-200? If so by all means get the f4. Or are you planning to shoot your kids basketball games, plays, evening time football games, etc? In that case there is absolutely no question about it, the 2.8 is required. If you're shooting wildlife with an extender, at those distances the f/4 will give you plenty of boken, plus the f/4 likes extenders more. Happy buying!
dprsok said:
'is the f2.8 worth the extra $800.?'

Are you asking if it's worth it to me? Or, to you?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
Click to expand...
 
The 2.8 may help you in low light (1 stop equals twice as much light) but others have brought forth some other things you need to consider - mainly the weight. You need to decide if you want to carry the added weight of the 2.8 over the f4. As for the sharpness arguement - both are very sharp and will serve you very well. You really need to consider what you will be doing with it. If you are shooting your kids in a situation where lighting may not be optimal, perhaps the 2.8 is a better option (or maybe even a faster prime lense).

The other reason I choose the 70-200 2.8 (in my case, with IS), is the improved AF sensitivity.

What is it you shoot anyway? Are your subjects generally in motion? Will IS provide you with a benefit? The 70-200 f4 (with or without IS) is a great value and can help you get some great captures but sometimes there is no substitute for large apertures. If you are considering a 70-200, have you considered third party? I haven't used the sigma so I can't comment on the IQ but I am sure the sigma 70-200 F2.8 II EX DG HSM is fairly good or perhaps even the Tamron? If you can do without the IS, they may be a less expensive option but you should do some reasearch and some soul searching first. All lenses have compromises (the Canon may compromise your bank account, the sigma may not have the sharpness you really want and the Tamron may not be as quick focusing) you just need to determine what you are comfortable with. The good news is that if you go Canon, "L's" hold their value quite well.
theponder said:
interesting... not familliar at all with 2.8 and thought it would only make a difference in low light
Click to expand...
 
There really are other reasons than for night or getting shallow DOF for portraits to choose the f/2.8 over the f/4, and the two in my post's title are probably the most important; certainly the most important to me. I find I use f/2.8 (i.e., I shoot at maximum aperture) quite often with my lens, and the results are very pleasing. But the f/2.8 does cost more and it is heavier, which of course is why the choice isn't simple.

FF
 
Keep in mind the purpose of IS.

The purpose of IS is not to stop motion of the subjects… Moving subjects such as a running sports player will require higher shutter speeds and/or a bright flash to stop the action - Image Stabilization does not help in these situations. A lot of people here question the additional cost of the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8. My advice - unless you are only shooting fast action or in bright lighting conditions, go for the IS version.

Again, the benefit of IS is to help YOU in a difficult lighting situation particularly when you are handholding the camera, particularly at slow shutter speeds and long focal lengths .

Couple the benefits of IS with the f/2.8...and you have a killer lens.

So the issue boils down to this question…what type of environments will you be shooting in?

I have the f/2.8 IS version, and you’d have to put a bullet in my head to take it from me in exchange for the f/4 version.

A lot of my shooting is in dim lighting: churches, gyms, auditoriums. And often times where flash is not appropriate.

If you going to be in decent enough lighting…go for the f/4 version. For those long shots, where the lighting is poor…for me…f/2.8 with IS.

ISO 800, Shutter 1/40, focal 200mm, f/2.8, about 100 feet away, in back of the church.



ISO 3200, Shutter 1/500, focal 70mm , f/2.8, completely on the opposite side of the gym.



r/Mike
theponder said:
is the f2.8 worth the extra $800.?

thanks
Click to expand...
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

 
as mentioned , my shooting is handheld, lots of travelling, birds, monkeys, animals in general, morning, day, evening, in the middle of the rainforest, as well as open areas.

Had the oportunity to try out the f4-non IS for the last 2 weeks in Panama and liked it... which is the reason I,m thinking of buying one ... but want the best for what I do.

thanks for all the info
 
The 5D, 7D, 50D, etc. have several AF points, which are suitable for high-accuracy focusing, but only with aperture at least f/2.8 (this has nothing to do with the aperture of the shooting, but of the lens).

The higher models (1Dxxx and 1Dsxxx) are better equipped, they can use the f/4 lenses too with the phase detection method.

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
 
this is purely subjective, but i'll bite. personally, i think "no", it's not worth it. in fact, even if they cost the same i would probably choose the f/4 over the f/2.8 simply because the f/4 is much lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 version
 
The f/2.8 lens can be used with a 2X teleconverter and still have the ability to reliably autofocus; whereas the f/4 lens with a 2X TC will result in an f/8 lens and would not necessarily be able to AF.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
 
Not to me. I had 70-200 f/2.8IS. It was heavy & cumbersome & it didn't provide enough light in low light situations. I got the 4IS & I love it. It is easy to carry around, easy to use & when i have a low light situation I have 85f1.8 & 135f2 that are in that range & work better for me in low light than f2.8. It is really all in what works best for each individual. Bab
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28700476@nob/
 
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