Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-200 F2.8 VS. F4 Is?  
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Thinking of potentially upgrading from my 70-200 f4L (non IS) to either the 70-200 2.8 (non IS)or the 70-200 f4 IS. There is about only $100 difference between the two.

Thoughts on which lens would be best for me? I have used a 2.8 for two days, and it is indeed a much bigger and heavier lens. I found that I like the feel of the smaller f4 lens. However, I do want to take more shots in lower light conditions. Maybe I just had to give myself more time to get used to the weight and bulk of the f/2.8. I didn't realize the huge difference in size between the two until I used them both.

I guess I wanted to see what would be best for panning during dusk and other low light events such as an indoor baseball game or wedding, or in general if one of these lenses was better to shoot aviation photography in less than ideal conditions. I'm very happy with my lens during nice sunny days. But if it's not perfect light outside, would the 2.8 or the 4 IS be better?

One thing to keep in mind, I do alot of my shooting from a vehicle. So 95% of the time I won't be using a tripod or monopod. That is one reason I like the f/4 because it is lighter and smaller. However, I do want to increase my range of usability. If I wanted to go out at sunset and take some panning shots, or indoors without a flash, what would be better the f2.8 (non IS) or the f/4 IS?

Thanks


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RonS (Thread starter):
I guess I wanted to see what would be best for panning during dusk and other low light events such as an indoor baseball game or wedding, or in general if one of these lenses was better to shoot aviation photography in less than ideal conditions. I'm very happy with my lens during nice sunny days. But if it's not perfect light outside, would the 2.8 or the 4 IS be better?

I think most will tell you to go with the faster glass. Especially for low light events such as indoor baseball games and weddings, 2.8 would benefit you more. My friends that shoot weddings all have the 70-200 f2.8 as their lens of choice. It's beautiful bokeh makes it a great portrait lens. Remember, IS will not help you freeze motion. It's not intended to work that way. It's designed to help with camera shake. So unless you have very unsteady hands causing a lot of headaches for you with your f4 non IS, then I don't think spending that much money for a gain of only IS will be worth it. IS does help for panning, but I think you will find the f2.8 a much more versatile lens.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1026 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

For this zoom range f/2.8 is the only way to go. If you do a variety of shooting outside of aviation, you will come to love f/2.8 not only for the extra light but also for the out of focus backgrounds.


Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

There's an interesting review of both at www.photozone.de which basically says that the f2.8 has quite some light fall-off at the borders, meaning that only the centre is really f2.8, and at the borders it effectively is f4. The f4 IS does not suffer much from this effect and is therefore f4 throughout.

I have the f4 IS and love it, I like the fact that it is light. It is also said to be marginally sharper than the f2.8.

Since you already have the f4 non-IS, do you find that not having IS is a problem? If not, go for the f2.8. Otherwise the f4 may be better. But either way, don't forget that you are already owning a very good lens.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Alevik (Reply 2):
For this zoom range f/2.8 is the only way to go.

What exactly do you mean by this? Please explain further. Thanks.

I do shoot wildlife and surfing, but for both of these I'm going to need something longer I realize. Unitl I can afford something like the 300 prime, I have given thought of purchasing the 1.4x, which would probably work better with the f2.8 because then it turns it into a f/4, VS turning the f/4 into a f/5.6.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 3):
I have the f4 IS and love it, I like the fact that it is light

Yes, that is a big deal, it is so much lighter. Right now I can reach in my bag and take it out snap off some shots. I can also just handle it better. Still keep it around my neck, and sometime just hold it by the lens. If When I tried the used f2.8, I just found it very bulky for my type of shooting, in the car...if I see something, take it out take a shot, and then put it away. I messed up alot of shots cause of the weight. I didn't hold it steady and when I hit the shutter button I was moving the lens around alot. However, I do realize this is not the lens, it was me, and that I would eventually get used to it.

I do find myself in situation around dusk, that I'm slowing the shutter speed to 1/100-1/50 at f4 and still not having enough light. Will IS let me lower the shutter speed a bit more to expose properly, or would I need a bigger aperature (2.8) I also find myself in poor weather, like snow storms, or just a cloudy day. I like to take shots in cloudy days, but obviously I don't expect them to be the same quality as a sunny day, but my non perfect weather days don't produce any real sharp and clear keepers.

If people could continue to give advice, I would appreciate it...very helpful.

Thanks!



All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1026 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting RonS (Reply 4):
What exactly do you mean by this? Please explain further. Thanks.

I shoot not only aviation but also sports and events. The first time you shoot a sports event at f/4, then shoot at f/2.8, you will see how the depth of field isolates the background. The ability f/2.8 gives you to shoot at lower light may seem unnecessary now, but I guarantee you if you shoot in the real world you will use it.

I shoot soccer, football, cricket etc outdoors in full daylight. And I shoot in aperture priority, wide open. You won't find any pro shooter of sports (try www.sportsshooter.com) that will shoot at anything less than wide open to isolate the backgrounds.

If you shoot aviation only, get the f/4. Even when I shoot at aviation dusk it is still f/8 or f/5.6 and either panning or a tripod.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineSamuel32 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Tough one...

Get the 2.8 when your going to use the lens a lot next to aviation.

If your only going to shoot planes then F/4 IS.

My 100-400L for example is only used for aviation... wide angles zoom and prime lenses for everything else.

[Edited 2009-05-04 10:34:40]

[Edited 2009-05-04 10:35:09]

User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2609 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think IS is very useful, not just in low light but in every condition. It's a tough choice but if you are used to not having IS, then get the f2.8. However since the 2.8 is heavier, IS is needed more. It's like a vicious cycle  Smile. Honestly if I were in your position I would wait a bit and save up for the 2.8 IS. It is about $700 more but it is definetly worth it. I use a friend's f2.8 IS and the lens is incredible...

User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I read indoors, and the only thing I can say is get the f/2.8. I have the IS version, which is way overkill for most of my aviation shots but once I get once I get indoors to shoot theater I wouldn't want the f/4. The f/2.8 helps both in freezing the subject (IS really doesn't help with 14-22 year olds bouncing around stage) and in isolating the subject with the debt of field. It's so narrow (which most of the times is great) that I can get one eye in focus and the other one out of focus. Let me show you some examples from a recent show I shot (all 30D + 70-200 F/2.8 IS at ISO 1600 and F/2.8). Click on them to view them 'full size'

http://jurgenradier.com/fm/lekkerstuk-2.jpg

http://jurgenradier.com/fm/lekkerstuk-3.jpg



http://jurgenradier.com/fm/lekkerstuk-5.jpg

The narrow depth of field really helps capturing the faces by blurring the rest. For this show, out of 131 photos I deemed worthy I shot 94 with the 70-200, the rest is wide-angle.

To make a long story short, indoors=f/2.8



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Thank you all! Great shots Jurgen! thanks


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2820 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

To be honest even if you are just shooting outside go with the F2.8.

A lot of canon cameras actually have AF cross hairs/sensors (can't remember the correct term) that only are used with F2.8 glass and faster. I find using my 70-200F2.8 i get much quicker AF than what i used to get with my older 70-200F4L. This is using a 1D2 however.

If you can afford it go for the F2.8.



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Right tool for the job.

I have a 70-200 f/2.8 because my 70-210 f/4 just wasn't cutting it in indoor settings. I can shoot the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 wide open with confidence.

I also enjoy using it outdoors because it's smaller/lighter than the Bigma, but in good light days the Bigma is still the weapon of choice. Hopefully I'll reaplace it with the 70-400G soon...



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Dan thanks. I hear ya about using the Tamron 70-200 outdoors because it is light. That is one of the reasons for my hesitation on going from the 70-200 which is light (705grams) and 67 MM. The 70-200 2.8 is 77MM and 1310 grams. I tried the 2.8 and it really was more cumbersome. I only used it for two days though, so maybe I need more time with it.

Ron



All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting RonS (Reply 12):
. That is one of the reasons for my hesitation on going from the 70-200 which is light (705grams) and 67 MM. The 70-200 2.8 is 77MM and 1310 grams.

The Tamron is 77mm as well. It's physically not even possible to make a 200mm f/2.8 with a 67mm filter as that is less than the 200/2.8 (=71.4)



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Like others have said, it all depens on what you want to shoot with the lens. personally I would like the F4 because of its size it would be a great travel lens.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RonS (Reply 12):
Dan thanks. I hear ya about using the Tamron 70-200 outdoors because it is light. That is one of the reasons for my hesitation on going from the 70-200 which is light (705grams) and 67 MM. The 70-200 2.8 is 77MM and 1310 grams. I tried the 2.8 and it really was more cumbersome. I only used it for two days though, so maybe I need more time with it.

1310 grams is a lot less than 1840 (Sigma 50-500) grams, that's for sure.   It's all relative I guess. I do save some weight by leaving off the tripod collar for when I don't need it. Without the collar it's probably more around 1100. I've never weighed it, it's jsut a guess.

Leaving collars off can save you some weight. I believe the f/4 lenses don't even have one at all.

[Edited 2009-05-10 12:47:45]


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3244 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 15):
I believe the f/4 lenses don't even have one at all.

That's correct, both version of the 70-200 f4 (IS / non-IS) do not come with the tripod mount. Which is really annoying, as it costs $170 or so (for a piece of plastic...).

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
That's correct, both version of the 70-200 f4 (IS / non-IS) do not come with the tripod mount. Which is really annoying, as it costs $170 or so (for a piece of plastic...).

I'm pretty sure the collars are made out of magnesium? No way would Canon support heavy lenses/bodies with a plastic collar...



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3244 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 17):

I'm pretty sure the collars are made out of magnesium? No way would Canon support heavy lenses/bodies with a plastic collar...

Hey Dan, is that right? I never personally handled one, so I wouldn't know... it somehow looked plastic on the pictures... but I'm happy to be corrected and I would be very happy if it's not plastic! Hopefully I'll find out soon, given that using my 40D / 70-200 f4 IS combo on a tripod is a pain without the tripod ring. The camera is too front heavy and sometimes wobbles with not so nice results. And that's in landscape mode, portrait mode is hopeless...

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

On the older 2.8 that I tried it was the same material as the lens body, so it seemed. A type of metal. The guy who loaned it to me said you could not take off the collar, but would not bet on there being a way to remove it. So since mostly all my shooting is handheld, that collar got in the way plenty of times too.


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RonS (Reply 19):
The guy who loaned it to me said you could not take off the collar, but would not bet on there being a way to remove it. So since mostly all my shooting is handheld, that collar got in the way plenty of times too.

On my 100-400, the tripod mount can be rotated so the flat mount can be moved to the top of the lens, out of the way of my hand while shooting handheld. Is that not possible with the 70-200 2.8?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 20):

On my 100-400, the tripod mount can be rotated so the flat mount can be moved to the top of the lens, out of the way of my hand while shooting handheld. Is that not possible with the 70-200 2.8?

The collar can both be rotated and removed on the 70-200 2.8



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
Which is really annoying, as it costs $170 or so (for a piece of plastic...).

Now this is something you'd typically buy from a 3rd-party manufacturer - I did at least, for my 70-200 F4L, it cost me €15 on Ebay and works just fine, it's made of metal.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Hi,

I just bought myself the 70-200 F2.8 IS last friday.
Man... awesome piece of glass. Did some indoor shooting and the need for F2.8
was a must.
I used it beside a Canon 300mm F2.8IS indoor! Shots even to 1/30s
perfect sharp!.

No regrets!

Daniel



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Canon's giving $200 instant rebates currently on the 2.8 IS so I got one yesterday from Calumet! I'm psyched! I just have to sell some stuff on ebay to pay it off though! Thank you for the insight guys.


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Vs. F/2.8L Is Vs. 35-350... posted Thu Aug 26 2004 01:19:56 by QantasA332
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F2.8 L Is posted Mon Apr 2 2007 20:50:29 by Mongorat
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Sigma Or Canon 70-200 F2.8? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 18:25:30 by Morvious
Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM posted Mon Oct 4 2004 21:30:12 by Jat74l
Canon 70-300mm Is USM Vs Canon 70-200 F4 L posted Sat Jun 8 2013 11:41:58 by dfinley
Canon 70-200 L F4 Is USM posted Tue Dec 10 2002 16:34:45 by PRM
Canon 70-200 F4L Is Problem/Quesiton posted Fri Oct 11 2013 15:16:12 by len90
Lens Upgrade - 70-200 F4L Vs 200 F2.8L posted Tue Feb 7 2012 22:21:52 by vikkyvik
Canon 70-200 F4 With 1.4 Extender III posted Sat Nov 20 2010 03:21:47 by stef247