# Canon 70-200 f4 vs. 70-200 f2.8



## David84 (Aug 21, 2009)

Hello all,

For those of you who have shot with both, what circumstances would you really need the f2.8 instead of the f4? I typically do most of my shooting outside - whether landscape, people, etc. The only indoor shooting I do is typically of the kid - which is usually more like 18-50mm range....

Also - this lens would be going on a 5d mkII sometime in the near future.

Any advice is greatly appreciated!

-David


----------



## usayit (Aug 21, 2009)

f/2.8 for anything that is low light....
f/4 as a walk around lens that is easy to pack...

I personally would rather have the 100-400L and the 70-200 f/2.8L choosing between focal range and speed.


----------



## astrostu (Aug 21, 2009)

I think people generally say if you shoot much indoors, the f/2.8 is a necessity.  For example, I was in a hotel a few months ago and they had lots of orchids around on tables.  I wanted to get photos of them.  But, it was incredibly low light, and I didn't have my speedlights with me to bounce off of walls.  I had to shoot at f/1.4, ISO 400, and still 1/15sec to get anything.


----------



## inTempus (Aug 21, 2009)

I'm done with f/4 lenses.  It's f/2.8 or faster for me going forward.  If you don't think you shoot in low light, you're purely a studio photographer.  Even if you're a natural light shooter, you'll find yourself outside in less than ideal conditions needing something more than f/4 at ISO 1600.

I also much prefer the creative options f/2.8 gives me.

The f/4 is a nice lens, no doubt.  But I wouldn't trade my f/2.8 for it even if you paid me.


----------



## KmH (Aug 21, 2009)

Plus there is the fact that most lenses perform best with a lens opening less than the maximum.

So, if you have an f/2.8 and stop it down to to improve the sharpness you are still a full stop more open comparred to starting at f/4.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 21, 2009)

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but even if you don't require the low-light speed, the f/2.8's are typically the better overall quality lenses. They tend to have the better build qualities, better glass, coatings, etc.


----------



## Montana (Aug 21, 2009)

And camera bodies (at less sub-pro) autofocus better with 2.8 and fast lenses.  Some cross type autofocus sensors require fast glass.


----------



## FrankLamont (Aug 21, 2009)

The f/2.8 IS version is also... quite nice...


----------



## usayit (Aug 21, 2009)

KmH said:


> Plus there is the fact that most lenses perform best with a lens opening less than the maximum.



The key word is "most".  The f/4L is very sharp (no idea about the IS version) even at wide open... some would even say slightly edging out the f/2.8L in certain situations.

In my case, I look and love the Leica 50mm f/1L Noctilux but it isn't as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.  The Canon 50mm /f1 is well known to under perform compared t the 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## FrankLamont (Aug 21, 2009)

The f/4 version _is_ very sharp...


----------



## CxThree (Aug 21, 2009)

If I am going to a sporting event or some other outdoor event like the zoo or an amusement park, the F4 is my lens of choice. It's tack sharp, light, and smaller than the F2.8L IS. For a wedding or other indoor event, it's F2.8 or lower for me. That's when I get the 70-200 F2.8L IS lens out of the bag.


----------



## David84 (Aug 23, 2009)

I appreciate everyones replies... The 2.8 is obviously more versatile in some situations, I was just trying to justify the cost difference. I think I'm persuaded... I'd shoot myself if I got a lens to find out I regretted it and wanted "the next step up"....

Thanks again for all the informative replies!

-David


----------



## mariusz (Aug 26, 2009)

if you can afford go with 2.8 shallow depth of field on 2.8 is a huge advantage plus 1 stop faster


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 26, 2009)

> I appreciate everyones replies... The 2.8 is obviously more versatile in some situations, I was just trying to justify the cost difference. I think I'm persuaded... I'd shoot myself if I got a lens to find out I regretted it and wanted "the next step up"....


I think this was one of my biggest justifications for getting the F2.8 L IS version...because I knew that if I got one of the cheaper models, I would regret it.  And every time I found myself in a situation where it would be handy, I'd wonder if I could have gotten a better shot.
Now, at least I know I have the best tool for the job (not counting all the prime lenses etc).  

Although, there are good points to be made for the F4 version.  It's smaller and lighter, which can be a big benefit after carrying it around all day.  With the way the new cameras handle high ISO these days, the one stop difference between F2.8 and F4 isn't the huge advantage that it used to be...but the DOF difference is nice.


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 26, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I'm done with f/4 lenses.  It's f/2.8 or faster for me going forward.  ...I also much prefer the creative options f/2.8 gives me.



Amen.  Also, a good F/2.8 lens is going to be sharper at F/4 than a lens that starts off at F/4.  Basically... no lens is at it's sharpest wide open.  Also superior optical qualities are *almost* always a factor too.


----------



## icassell (Aug 26, 2009)

As much as I love my f2.8 lenses, they are usually bigger and heavier and far more obvious than the same focal length lens but f4. I often use my nifty fifty now rather than my 17-50 f2.8 if I want to be a bit discrete. I have been in situations (recently at a rodeo) where I was sent back to my car with my camera and told "we don't allow big professional cameras".  I might have made it in with a smaller lens. I didn't need lens speed for that daylight outdoor event.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 26, 2009)

I've used both the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8, on a 50D the f/4 is sharper. 

They're both L lenses, so build is the same. The only thing the F2.8 version has is that it's 1 stop faster. If you're using it for landscape, save your money, get the f/4. It's lighter, sharp, same range, and if you're serious, you'll be on a tripod anyway. If you'll be shooting events, the 2.8. 

Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS is a lens I wish Nikon made, but they have so many different 70-200 2.8's it makes your head spin.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I've used both the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8, on a 50D the f/4 is sharper.



I can't tell you how many times I have said this and people look at me with strange looks.  Even in a camera shop full of self admitted amateurs (me included) and they suddenly look at me like I don't know anything.  I guess its like cars and horsepower... people want an easy rating system so they don't have to do the research.... so they assume larger aperture == ultimately better lens (for everyone).

Back then... it didn't matter... shop owners liked it when we sold the more expensive version regardless..  ;-)


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2009)

The one thing a person really needs to conssider today, with the advent of high-MP sensors, is that Image Stabilizer type lenses (Nikon has VR, Sigma OS) are a very,very big improvement to image quality on the higher-MP count bodies like the Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II; careful tests by qualified professionals are showing that the newer high MP bodies are showing very *serious* image degradation at hand-held speeds even in the 1/180 to 1/250 speed zones with these ultra-resolution cameras.

We had a similar paradigm shift when we went from basically 6 MP crop-frame d-slr bodies to 12.2 MP crop-frame cameras; lens defects and faults in technique that were masked by the low resolution of 6MP and 8MP bodies started to reveal themselves at 12 MP. Moving forward, I think many hand-held shooters will learn,some of them the hard way, that the image stabilizer versions of this lens are worth the added price.

My understanding is that the 70-200 f/4 IS version is actually an excellent lens that really does give up very little, if anything, to the f/2.8 versions in terms of optical performance.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2009)

I always thought that the term "image quality" was a function of the performance of the optics (resolving, control of distortion, control of chromatic aberration) regardless of blur introduced by photographer error... ie handshake.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2009)

In other words...

IQ of a lens doesn't change when a shot is taken on a tripod versus not on a tripod.

IQ of a lens doesn't change when a shot is taken with IS versus with non-IS.


----------

