Canon 70-200: f/4 IS vs. F/2.8

jason...

jason...

Active member
I've come into a bit of money recently and it's about time for me to add a zoom lens to my collection. I've been borrowing a 70-200 from a friend pretty frequently for the last little while and I'm sick of having to borrow something and I'm sure he's sick of having to lend me it, so it's time to invest in one of my own.

A little background info:

I shoot on a 7D. Pretty much entirely photos and any video will be shot using my fisheye. My current lens setup includes a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, a canon 50 f/1.8 and a Canon 55-250 that I bought when I freshly bought an XSi and didn't know jack shit about lenses. It's surprisingly not that bad and the only photo I have had printed was shot using it, but pictures taken with it are generally not that sharp and lack contrast. I shoot mainly skiing and skateboarding, but I'm sure I'll get into other things with time.

If I missed any important information let me know.
 
if youre mainly shooting skiing and skating, id go f4. you really only need f2.8 for low light and indoor.
 
do you shoot video at all?

do you shoot low light at all video wise?

if yes to both of those, get the 2.8. even though its not IS'ed its gives you the extra stop for video.

otherwise get the 4l IS. sharpest 70-200, and if you're using it mainly for photography you can shoot up to like 1/30th handheld with IS on and you will get nice shots
 
With the ISO performance of the 7D I would go for the F4 IS. The IS, in some situations, will give you an extra stop of light that the F2.8 version would. Both are going to be sharp but unless you want to spend more and get the F2.8 IS version I'd stick with the F4 IS.
 
honestly, my canon 70-200 f4 just came in TODAY. soo stoked its a solid and fast lens forsure. not to big either actually. im in love
 
im not really seeing it to be worth it for me to get the 2.8 IS if im just doing photos. f/4 IS and 2.8 are around the same price, I've actually found the 2.8 for cheaper locally so im leaning towards that at the moment. 2.8 means i can run a fast shutter speed, but IS means i dont have to be as dependent on a fast shutter speed, uhh decisions decisions.

Keep the opinions coming, i want to have as much info as possible.
 
I don't see any practical use for apertures above f/4 for sports photography. Hell, I usually shoot around f/8-f/16. Besides, the f/4 is sharper/cheaper than the f/2.8. Unless you're shooting indoor sports, I see no reason to spend the extra on 2 stops of light.
 
what? the f4 IS is 1200 and the f2.8 is 2500. But, i suppose thats new. if you can get the mkI 2.8 IS for cheaper then id say do it. the only advantage is the f4 is ligher.
 
Lies. Look at Mattias Fredriksson's work; damn near everything is in focus and it looks epic. If you rely on shallow DOF to separate your subject from the background, you're doing it wrong.
 
meh thats up for debate big time as shallow depth of field can really add to a photo, as can having everything in focus, really depends on the photogs style and if it's done right. regardless thats not what I'm here to discuss, back on track of which 70-200.
 
Bokeh is a nice effect for portraiture...I can hardly seen any use for it in action sports, unless it's snowing or something. I'm just sick of people assuming that bokeh is inherently desirable; it depends on the situation/style, like you said. Skiing involves a lot of landscape work, which often requires deep hyperfocal DOF. Having the ability to shoot wide open has certain advantages, but in no way is always better, theoretically speaking. Besides, you can get some crazy shallow DOF at f/4, so it's really a non-issue.

From a technical standpoint, it has pretty much been proven that the f4 IS is the best version in terms of sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc. Aside from the fact that it is two stops slower, it is lighter, cheaper, and optically superior in every way. I suggest the f/4 because you are getting a better lens at a cheaper price, assuming you aren't reliant on the extra two stops.
 
2.8 for sure.

IS and VR are nice but 90% of the times that 2.8 shutter speed will help more than f/4 with IS.

If you're shooting in low light chances are something might be moving which makes VR and IS stupid. If you're shooting in low light and things are not moving - use a tripod.

Better to have a wider available light than to rely on IS to make up for the stop differences which it doesn't between f/4 and f/2.8.

 
Also may I ask, in what scenario would you be shooting in low light but be unable to light your subject? Indoor soccer? Paparazzi? I feel like a lens' overall optical quality is a far more important deciding factor than its ability to produce decent imagery in unfit conditions. It would be like buying park skis based on how well they perform in the backcountry.
 
Im a nikon guy but i have used the 2.8 70-200 cannon on a 5d mrk2 a few times and id have to say its a pretty fantastic lens, its a bit heavy but its worth it the 2.8 is really nice for low light and is more useful than the IS for me at least. The real bottom line is that you will be stoked on either of them.
 
if you find your self using the long range the 200mm 2.8l is smaller then the 2.8s and sharper than all 4 70-200s. love mine. add 85mm 1.8. nice combo in my opinion
 
Or save up and get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I love it even though the weight kills. It is just as sharp as the f/4 with the best IS I have ever had on a lens and that is equal to 2 stops more than regular f/4.
 
Keep in mind that if you are bringing it up to the mountain, and traveling with it a lot, that 2.8 is significantly larger and heavier.

Unless you are shooting a lot of indoor stuff where you wouldnt be able to light your shot yourself, or plan on throwing a TC on there, go with the f4
 
haha i love how you have the nicest of every piece of gear. I wish i had a college fund i could just spend on camera porn instead
 
F4 IS.
Lighter, sharper, superb bokeh with a large enough space between subject/background. Honestly though Jason, the weight of the F4 IS still bothers me. I don't know how much you would enjoy a 2.8 hanging around your neck.
Need I say more?
 
I agree, but disagree. IMO f/4 or 5 works well, but shooting at f/8 or f/16 must make the background pretty distracting.
5711923382_002e76d01c_b_d.jpg


F/5.6 was pretty effective when shooting at a 300mm focal length.
 
i was waiting for you, icon threw me off. im still pretty torn, i guess whats really guiding the decision at the moment is the fact that i can get the 2.8 barely used for a solid amount cheaper than a 4IS. ehhh i dunno. good opinions coming both ways, and i've read more than a few reviews saying the 2.8 is sharper than the 2.8IS, and 4IS is the sharpest of the entire lineup.
 
Not if it's composed right. Shallow DOF is easier because it means your subject will be separated from the background no matter how you compose (assuming you've nailed the focus). However if you're trying to capture not just the skiing, but the entire scene (which is highly fitting in ski photography), you are going to want everything in focus. You are going to have to be much more on top of your shit when it comes to composition, but it pays off. Example:

225635_10150184708832808_667967807_6725624_1935698_n.jpg
 
with skiing, obviously a narrow depth of field is less important because we often like to showcase the surroundings, especially with an environmental shot like that one. But in a lot of other sports, field sports in particular, blowing the BG way out of focus is really important to have your subject stand out. yes, careful framing of the BG can help, but many many times theres no clean background. the shot further up is a good example. not bad at 5.6, but would have been even better at 2.8. Not saying that a fast aperture is always important in sports photography, but its an important component used by just about everyone in the field (actions sports excluded).
 
Haha well it is my job! I have to offer my clients quality work so why not invest now and have it pay me back more than its worth. But I love the lens, sure thinned out my wallet though!
 
True man, I never thought about ski photography. There isn't much of a background where I ski so I've never thought about it. I'm pretty new to ski photography so thanks for the tip.
 
the f/4 IS has a more consistent sharpness throughout focal length and aperture. A lot of the review on the 2.8 IS II sample handheld shots, which are null comparisons because they are more a demonstration of IS than the actual optics of the lens. And if you rely on IS that much you should be using a tripod with the IS turned off anyway...

You can't go wrong with any of them, but the absolute best one is the f4 IS in terms of optics, versatility, and size.
 
Absolutely. Well put. And to Riley, my last post was addressing the first editions only seeing as Jason isn't even looking at the mark II.
 
agreed, tripods aren't necessary most of the time.

I generally end up shooting in the f4-f8 range, and never end up having to shoot slow shutter speeds in bright light. I would consider saving your money and going f4.

I think that the only time having f2.8 would really be necessary in a situation when you can't light your subject by other means would be shooting long up the pipe or jumps during high budget comps (xgames, dew tour etc.) or maybe well lit stadiums for other sporting events. Concerts could fall under that category too. If you don't ever NEED to shoot events like that long, don't bother. It's not generally all that fun anyways!
 
I agree that tripods aren't necessary for still photography, but a tripod + remote shutter adds an extra oomph of sharpness.

But hey, skiing is just an excuse for me to shoot landscapes, so call me old fashioned.

 
Just going to bump this to say that this thread is reallllyyy helpful.

Made my decision a breeze.
 
Question: I also have a 7D and am considering the 70-200 F4 IS and the 70-200 F2.8 (NON IS). I don't generally shoot with a tripod so, Is the IS really worth it? Because right now that is my only dispute. Thanks.
 
I'm not going to shoot with a tripod very often, and the 2.8 is out of my price range by far. How much sharper is the F4 L IS over the F4 L, is the IS worth twice the cost of the non IS, ect.
 
this, i solved all my IS needs on my f4L non IS with a $30 mono pod from target. 2.8 non IS>4 IS
 
Have fun taking that monopod hiking, skiing, biking etc bud. I'll stick with my increased sharpness, contrast, low light performance and decreased weight (with the monopod), thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top