canon 70-200-f4 vs f2.8

john1963

hi folks, i have the canon L series f4 and was thinking of selling it to get the L series f2.8 both are the non is models. is there a significant difference? was thinking the 2.8 would be sharper and with more background blur. any advice would be appreciated

AnimalRights

Not sharper but better background blur, also double the weight so wheras you can get away with the f4 as a walkaround the 2.8 you can't.

Captain Flaps

AnimalRights wrote: »

Not sharper but better background blur, also double the weight so wheras you can get away with the f4 as a walkaround the 2.8 you can't.

I've shot gigs before on the 2.8IS with lovely sharp results. It just depends on how well you support it.

oshead

You gain 1 stop of light and more bokeh at one setting on the lense. Is that worth all the extra money it'll cost?

PabD

Is the main reason you were thinking of changing to achieve more bokeh or is it to have a faster lens for low light?

I have the F4 non is and have mounted it on a 400d a lot of the time and sometimes it can bug me as I don’t like pushing the ISO to far, however when I mount it on the 5D MK2 it becomes a real pleasure to use as there is more room to play with regarding bumping up the ISO while retaining quality.

I don’t think I could justify the extra cost as I have the use of higher ISO settings and I find it doesn’t limit me when mounted on a better body. If you want more bokeh though tis a different story altogether.

smash

get a lend of a 2.8 and try it out.

Blazer

Boss is a pro photographer and I was debating the same thing with him...
He says image quality is better on the f4 than the f2.8 which reviewers say as well.
However he was saying for what I want it for (some sports etc) he says it's not worth my while stepping up.
He uses his for weddings etc so he definitely needs the 2.8.

Borderfox

I would say get the f2.8 as most of the time in Ireland its overcast and you end up shooting at f4 on an f4 lens. Dont forget an f2.8 can shoot at f4 and be very sharp whereas the opposite isnt true

john1963

what is bokeh?

Slidinginfinity

john1963 wrote: »

what is bokeh?

Bokeh is

AnimalRights

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I've shot gigs before on the 2.8IS with lovely sharp results. It just depends on how well you support it.

I've shot gigs too, I said walkaround lens...ie carrying it all day.

FX Meister

I have no problem carrying the 2.8IS around with me. It gets tiresome when I carry it with some of my other lenses but just it and my 5D is fine. I like the faster aperature and IS when shooting 200 hand held. I've gotten really good shots at gigs with it too.

squareballoon

I have the 2.8 non IS and love it but my puny girly arms do find it heavy to carry around so I don't use it as much as I'd like to. The problem I find with is that the 2.8 would be lovely for indoor portraits but you have to get so far back that it's generally not feasible.

MartMax

If u have the money, i think it's worth going for a f2.8.

Personally, I'd really appreciate the IS, my hands would probably be shakey holding this 1.5kg glass all day. that's my experience with 24-70 which is only 1kg. i might be wrong, the IS version is also weather sealed.

Having said that I love the f4 that I had, no doubt abt the sharpness but it was also convenience to carry around for travelling.

FYI. As per Kerso's pricing there's a difference of 350 pound btwn f2.8 IS and and non-IS version.