tivoboy
Veteran Member
Just a warning, but a NEW 2.8 IS v II is already out, pricing is yet to be determined.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
70-200 f4 IS or f2.8 IS
- Thread starter theponder
- Start date
chironNYC
Veteran Member
I owned the 2.8 IS and then bought the 4 IS with return privleges to compare them to each other. In my comparisons the 4 IS was clearly superior optically in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast. The 2.8 IS is very good by all accounts, but the 4 IS is one of the optically best lenses that Canon has ever produced and some reivews have said it provides the quality of primes throughout its range. It has a glowing reputation like the 135 f/2L and the 100mm f2.8L IS Macro do.
The 4 IS is much more managable to carry, hold up to your eye and to work with because it is much lighter and smaller than the 2.8. The size of the 2.8 will make you feel well-hung, but it gets in its own way for me.
Finally, the 4 IS has four stops of IS; the older (and about to be replaced) 2.8 IS has three. For me, at tele distances and with what I shoot, waiting for a pause in subject movement and hand-holding with four stops of IS works extremely well. I sold my 2.8 IS and bought the 4 IS and a 1.4 Canon TC for the same money.
--
Peter
The 4 IS is much more managable to carry, hold up to your eye and to work with because it is much lighter and smaller than the 2.8. The size of the 2.8 will make you feel well-hung, but it gets in its own way for me.
Finally, the 4 IS has four stops of IS; the older (and about to be replaced) 2.8 IS has three. For me, at tele distances and with what I shoot, waiting for a pause in subject movement and hand-holding with four stops of IS works extremely well. I sold my 2.8 IS and bought the 4 IS and a 1.4 Canon TC for the same money.
--
Peter
chironNYC
Veteran Member
In my experience, the 4 IS focuses extremely quickly and accurately. Comapred to the 2.8 IS, in my comparisons, the 4 IS focused more quickly and reliably than the 2.8 IS, perhaps because the 4 IS has more contrast and is sharper than the 2.8 while focusing wide open.
One of my test targets for focusing was the very lightly shadowed edge of a white wall switch on a white wall in very, very dim lighting. The 4 IS nailed it quickly. The 2.8 hunted.
One other thing: If you are not using a monopod, the weight of the 2.8 makes it much more difficult to hold steady at your eye while you wait for the shot.
--
Peter
One of my test targets for focusing was the very lightly shadowed edge of a white wall switch on a white wall in very, very dim lighting. The 4 IS nailed it quickly. The 2.8 hunted.
One other thing: If you are not using a monopod, the weight of the 2.8 makes it much more difficult to hold steady at your eye while you wait for the shot.
--
Peter
No doubt both are very good lenses. Both have likely produced many images we have seen in newspapers or magazines yet nobody says "oh, that is so much sharper it must have been taken with XXX lense".
That really is a personal preference. The f4 sounds like the right choice for you although the comment regarding "well-hung" seems to indicate that those who need or want the 2.8 are deficient in some personal attributes which I think is a little unwarranted. If the f4 is what makes you happy fine, if the f2.8 makes others happy, good for them - no point making personal slights.
So following that logic, the IS on the f4 version provides no IS benefit over the 2.8 IS version as far as IS is concerned (reported 4 stop IS on f4 but half the light coming through compared to reported 3 stop IS on the 2.8 with twice light coming through). But if IS isn't really usuable for a situation, then the 2.8 lense could make the difference between getting the shot or not.
There really isn't a right or wrong answer here. Both lenses are good, both are capable of producing very sharp images, both have pro's and cons (f4 weighs less vs 2.8 af sensitiviy for example). Personally, I like the added weight of the 2.8 IS. I have hiked with it all day and enjoyed it (sure I was tired but was that due to the hike or should i blame the lense?). In the end it doesn't matter what I like. What is important for every poster is to provide objective feedback regarding the lenses and the OP to go to a store and try them out - or better rent both and see if one fits them better than the other. Just because the f2.8 is to much for you doesn't mean it will be for the OP.
Ansonn701987
Leading Member
In my opinion the 70-200 f4 IS is one of the best lens Canon has made. The IQ is about as good as it gets plus it can be handheld much easier than the f2.8 IS. Ansonn
fwampler
Veteran Member
So, "fantastic" is better than "excellent"? Is that true in low light with moving target too?
Fred
--
Fred
chironNYC
Veteran Member
Actually, on the autofocus issue, when I was comparing the two lenses I found the f/4 IS to be quicker and more reliable than the f/2.8 IS on very low contrast, dimly lit targets. One of my most difficult targets was a white wall plate for a light switch on a white wall. I just recreated the situation, and the exposure was 1/4 sec at 3200 ISO at f/4, with the f/4 IS quickly locking focus on the lightly shadowed edge (where there was a bit of contrast). I think it does so well against the f/2.8 in this situation because it has better contrast and sharpness at the maximum aperture that is being used for focusing. The 2.8 IS lacks contrast and has reduced sharpness at maximum aperture. This would hurt its focusing relative to the contrastier and sharper f/4. This was my comparison. YMMV.
--
Peter
Don't take this the wrong way but you couldn't have possibly tested/compared the AF speed if you only own the f4 (you indicated you "owned" the 2.8 but returned it. So your result is based on a memory of a lense you owned for a short enough period of time where you could return it (say 2 weeks, maybe 30 days??). You also have to consider the body you had it on since the body actually does the AF - the lense is just a piece of the equation. The f4 I tried was quick focusing, as quick as many USM lenses I have used including the 70-200 2.8. If there was a difference in the speed where focus was obtained, I didn't even notice it.
I don't dispute the f4 is a great lense for the money (IS or not) and if you don't need 2.8 or want 2.8 then the f4 is a great choice - but you can't paint everyone's situation the same as yours. I personally don't take many pictures of wall switch plates but to even suggest the 2.8 is slow focusing and that cameras with AF points more sensitive to lense of 2.8 apertures or larger will be slow is ridiculous. I chose the 70-200 2.8 IS because I needed/wanted the larger aperture. I can always stop it down to f4 if i want. A lense with a maximum aperture of f4 will cannot be opened up any further. If I need that light (which can often be the case), it is there for me. That was my decision based on my needs - your needs are obviously different. But don't mislead people.
I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one.
Port Royal Dad
Veteran Member
Have you noticed a common theme here…lots and lots and lots of opinions for why this kens is sharper than that lens …but interestingly…… no examples!!! So what gives???
It’s because the argument that the f/4 version of the lens is soooooooo much better than the f/2.8 version of the lens, or vice versa is total Bull Shitz!!!!!
All lenses have their strengths and weaknesses, and serve better in certain situations.
So the question for you... What's going to be your shooting situation?
So don’t believe this BS that one lens’s IQ is superior to the other! Remember that the final image is the product of your skill.
Like I said earlier, I have the 70-200L f/2.8 IS version and love it. And it has served me very well in many events. A good bit of advice you recieved above... go to a store if possible and hold these lens, mount them to your camera and see how each one feels.
Here are three examples:
Shutter 1/60, 175 mm ISO 800
Shutter 1/60, 110 mm, ISO 800
Shutter 1/125, 200 mm, ISO 1600
Keep this in mind...
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)
It’s because the argument that the f/4 version of the lens is soooooooo much better than the f/2.8 version of the lens, or vice versa is total Bull Shitz!!!!!
All lenses have their strengths and weaknesses, and serve better in certain situations.
So the question for you... What's going to be your shooting situation?
So don’t believe this BS that one lens’s IQ is superior to the other! Remember that the final image is the product of your skill.
Like I said earlier, I have the 70-200L f/2.8 IS version and love it. And it has served me very well in many events. A good bit of advice you recieved above... go to a store if possible and hold these lens, mount them to your camera and see how each one feels.
Here are three examples:
- All at F/2.8
Shutter 1/60, 175 mm ISO 800
Shutter 1/60, 110 mm, ISO 800
Shutter 1/125, 200 mm, ISO 1600
Keep this in mind...
- Good Light?
- Bad Light?
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)
elfroggio
Veteran Member
Fantastic vs Exellent is my personal opinion of the optical quality of the lens. Before buying the 4IS, I tried both and decided mostly because of the weight and size.
Fantastic is better than Excellent and Excellent is much better than Very Good.
Now "low light with moving target"
- As I explained this doesn't apply too much for me.
- The main problem is not the low light, but:
- The contrast of the subject against the background
- The type of moving target. A car is easy, it follows the same direction. A squirrel is much more difficult with the stop and go and multiple directions.
- The skill of the operator, with the skill being the most important.
Thanks
http://foto-biz.com
The Business of Being a Photographer -- Lightroom Q&A
chironNYC
Veteran Member
You didn't read my post carefully. I owned the 2.8 IS for 3 years, was never happy with the weight, always found it soft at 2.8 and lacking contrast througout. I bought the f/4 IS from Amazon and had 30 days to return it. I extensively compared the two lenses in image quality, foocusing, and handling. In my experience the f/$ IS focused quickly on low contrast, dimly lit targets while the f/2.8 ofte hunted on these targets. I also found the optical qulaity of the f/4 IS to be clearly and very visibly better than the f/2.8 IS. I sold the 2.8 IS and kept the f/4 IS, adding a Canon 1.4 TC. Money came out even. Finally, the useability of the f/4 IS for me is much greater. It is now one of my most used lenses, while the 2.8 rarely came out of its case.
As I said, YMMV.
--
Peter
As I said, YMMV.
--
Peter
chironNYC
Veteran Member
I partially agree with you and partially disagree. Yes, sometimes the 2.8 max aperture will be the deciding factor on what you need (though this is overestimated in my view).
But I also think it is entirely correct that some lenses are sharper and have better contrast and color than others. This is the case with the f/4 IS vs. the f/2.8 IS.
See this careful review of the f/4 IS:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
or this one:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d
--
Peter
But I also think it is entirely correct that some lenses are sharper and have better contrast and color than others. This is the case with the f/4 IS vs. the f/2.8 IS.
See this careful review of the f/4 IS:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
or this one:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d
--
Peter
Yes. But only because it allows me to take photos of night football (soccer) games under floodlights, and maintain a very low depth of field under other circumstances.
On the downside it weighs lots and can be quite hard to carry both on your neck and in hand.
--
One shot at a time.
On the downside it weighs lots and can be quite hard to carry both on your neck and in hand.
--
One shot at a time.
I am in the same situation trying to decide between these two lenses.
My quality criteria is for the best sharpness and contrast.
Looking at test charts it seems like the F/4 is the superior both in optical quality and contrast.
First when you stop down the F/2.8 to F/5.6 it starts to equal the F/4 in sharpness but still lacking in contrast.
When it comes to the "lowlight capabilities" of the F/2.8; isn't this a quality that is slowly getting outdated with the increasing higher ISO quality of newer cameras?
Except for the "shallow DOF" quality of F/2.8.
But for "shallow DOF portraits" situations I can get a 135mm F/2.0 L together with the 70-200mm F/4 IS for about the same price as one 70-200mm F/2.8.
Check out the comparison test charts (mouse over) and adjust the focal lengths and F/stop to see the quality difference. Notice the contrast differences even stopped down.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
My quality criteria is for the best sharpness and contrast.
Looking at test charts it seems like the F/4 is the superior both in optical quality and contrast.
First when you stop down the F/2.8 to F/5.6 it starts to equal the F/4 in sharpness but still lacking in contrast.
When it comes to the "lowlight capabilities" of the F/2.8; isn't this a quality that is slowly getting outdated with the increasing higher ISO quality of newer cameras?
Except for the "shallow DOF" quality of F/2.8.
But for "shallow DOF portraits" situations I can get a 135mm F/2.0 L together with the 70-200mm F/4 IS for about the same price as one 70-200mm F/2.8.
Check out the comparison test charts (mouse over) and adjust the focal lengths and F/stop to see the quality difference. Notice the contrast differences even stopped down.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Sounds like you aren't trying to decide which one to get - you are trying to justify it. If you like the f4 get the f4 and believe the f4 is superior to the f2.8 for your needs the answer is pretty clear don't you think?
And I carry mine for hours at a time, i.e. NASCAR racing, back-to-back men's and women's basketball games, football games, trips to the zoo, etc. The weight really isn't an issue.
Steve
--
Steve
Perhaps you are right - I just went looking through some of my shots with the 70-200 2.8 IS the contrast is just terrible. We can't just sharpness because I stopped it all the way down to f4 - this shot clearly shows how inferior the f2.8 is to the f4. As a side note, I think this was taken with my 5Dmkii - an incredibly inferior AF system.
I suppose the point is that you should get the tool that suites your needs. I will continue to be happy with my decision just as I am sure you will be with yours and nobody needs to justify their decision on this forum or try to support their decision through feedback from anonymous people on the internet. People can point to all the controlled studies/test they want in the end what is going to work for you in the real world is what you should purchase.
I suppose the point is that you should get the tool that suites your needs. I will continue to be happy with my decision just as I am sure you will be with yours and nobody needs to justify their decision on this forum or try to support their decision through feedback from anonymous people on the internet. People can point to all the controlled studies/test they want in the end what is going to work for you in the real world is what you should purchase.
chironNYC
Veteran Member
Yes, this is exactly what I found when I compared the two lenses over three weeks.
There are clearly important design compromises that often must take place to produce a large maximum aperture at a reasonable size and price. These optical compromises may have been worth it in the days of film, but the higher ISO speeds of digital sensors make the optical compromises less desirable.
For example, if you are shooting at 1600 with digital and getting the quality of ISO 100 film, then your f/4 with digital is the equivalent of an f/1.2 with film (for most photographic purposes). Add in another four stops of image stabilization on modern lenses, and it becomes clear why heavy, expensive, and optically compormised max/ap lenses are less desirable now than they once were--if outstanding optical quality is available on a less maxed out aperture lens (as it is withe the f/4L IS).
--
Peter
chironNYC
Veteran Member
Very nice image!! I like it a lot. Though in terms of our discussion, from the depth of field, I'm guessing it was shot at 5.6 or smaller.
--
Peter
--
Peter
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum