70-200mm F/4 L IS or F/2.8 L?

I can't speak for the lens specifically, but I use the 70-200mm vr nikon. The extra stops from the aperture and vr really help, especially since the 350D doesn't have awesome low light capabilities. I have some shots using this lens on a D70 in my portfolio in the Wyclef Jean folder.

If you don't need to capture the action, IS lens will easily compensate for aperture by allowing you to slow the shutter. However if you anticipate taking pictures of moving subjects, IS will not help you.

The non-IS version of f/2.8 is sharp at all apertures. The IS version is a little less sharp at f/2.8, but only if you compare it side-by-side at other apertures and its f/4 siblings.

The IS will only help with camera shake not with subect movement. IS is great for dim light with still subjects but for people the extra stop will be more important to help freeze motion. Also the shallower dof will also help with isolating your subjects. And once you upgrade to the 5D II you can shoot at higher shutter speeds using very high ISOs .

I just realized I didn't really answer the question. I agree with what the other 2 posters said.

I have a 40D with a 70-200mm F4 L is usm and it does fine for everything you mention. Check out Photo Sig website where you can find all kinds of actual photos taken by lens make and type. Then you can see what kind of photos each make or type of lens actually has taken. That may help you in your decision. The last or next to last edition of PCphoto Magazine had an article with photos of theatre productions shot with a 70-200mm F4 L is usm and they were just great.

For a long lens I opted for the 2.8.. IS is nice anywhere but on the long end if I had a choice I would take the extra stop. 2.8 is much more important when shooting subjects farther away ( less benefit from flash ) Also when I really need stability, I can use a tripod, I cant get back that extra stop.

I use the 200mm 2.8 L prime, very good in low-light and gives very sharp images. I think speed counts more than IS for low light. Cost is less than $700.

The 2.8 is very heavy. I would go with it if you plan to shoot with a monopod or tripod. It is hand-holdable, but after 30 or 40 minutes it starts to get pretty old. I have the 2.8 IS -- sometimes I really really need that 2.8 -- but even when I *don't* really need the 2.8, I still have to carry all that weight. I honestly kinda wish I had both. Not that I've got the budget for that kind of redundancy.

I can vouch for the 2.8 being quite sharp wide open. Entirely usable for almost any purpose.

And I would second Nathan's suggestion to at least look at the 200mm f/2.8 (and also the 135mm f/2). If a prime will work for you, they're cheaper and lighter and have excellent image quality.

One solution to your quandry would be to wait a while, until funds allow the f2.8 IS purchase. But I sense the lens is "out of budget" not just due to lack of funds, but also because that's a heck of a lot of money for a lens. Hmm..

I have the f2.8 IS version, and I really got stung. I got mine before the f4 IS version was available, and at inflated Canadian retail prices. Recently, Ive been thinking about getting the f4 IS version, anyways. The f4 is about an inch shorter, a bit narrower, and virtually *half* the weight (roughly 750gm vs 1500gm). It is signif. if you're packing it around for a day.

Tonio,

It is a false saving, if you take this to the next level you will have many occasions when you need the 2.8 IS, wait till you can get one then get it, you will not regret it.

Take care, Scott.

On the 5DII the F4 IS is probably fast enough because of the very fine high ISO performance of that camera. However if you intend to wait a long while you might prefer the faster lens.

My preference would be the F4 IS because of the weight, sharpness and lower price.

Regards, Matthijs.

Matthijs,

Are you suggesting the f4 is sharper than the 2.8? If you are I always laugh at this suggestion, there is no way on earth an f4 lens wide open is sharper than an f2.8 one stopped down, it might be fractionally sharper when they are both wide open but at f4....................

Take care, Scott.

I have owned the 70-200 F2.8L (non-IS) for several years and I am very happy with the lens. I also own the 24 -70 F2.8 and find it a little soft at F2.8 - but only at the edges so I am surprised by the problems on the APS-C camera maybe the real issue is ISO 800?. I do not really miss the lack of IS and I handhold a lot but I would miss the F2.8. Maybe I have steadier hands than some but I take a lot of ski racing and ice hockey photos and would really miss the F2.8 lens. The AF is much faster with this lens (the 70-200 is faster I believe than the 24-70 - indeed only my 300mm F2.8 is faster and this is a very exotic lens). I am not sure if the EOS 350 can take advantage of the faster AF of the F2.8 lens so you need to check. the Canon EOS 1NRS and EOSiV have very fast AF with this lens but the digital rebel one of the kids owns has useless AF for sports - even with good glass. the reason I do not miss the IS is that I really need to freeze action and have fast AF. Ski racing is a very fast sport and I recommend the F2.8 for this. the only indoor sport I shoot is ice hockey wher you need 1/125 to stop action with the 70-200 F2.8 this is marginal (often you are at 1/90 or similar) when using 400ISO film. I am currently all film (except the kids rebel) and will go digital with the 5D mark II - mainly for its apparent high ISO performance. If you do get any of these lenses I suggest that you get the 1.4x TC but not the 2x as it is a poor performer. When I tested lenses I compared the 70-200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F4 (IS) and decided that for a few extra $ I would get the faster lens and do without IS. The reason I do not really miss IS is that i do not use this lens for slow or staic subjects without a tripod or monopod. That is the key question to ask yourself - do i need fast AF and the ability to stop action (if so buy the F2.8) or do I frequently handhold in poor light without a support (then buy the F4IS). I chose not to buy the F2.8 IS as it was $600 i did not need to spend. My new toy (300mm F2.8 IS) has IS but I have never needed it as my shutter speed is almost always fast enough that shake is not an issue (or I am taking a sunset from a tripod). For indoor sports I find 300mm is too long unless you are using 2 cameras. even with full frame from center ice (by the bench) the only time you need 300mm is when the play is by one of the goals - the problem is when the play is closer to center ice the 300mm is too long!

I can speak as someone who owns the gear. I have the 350D and I also have the 70-200 f2.8L IS. I find at f2.8 the lens gives soft images on the 350D. They also have a foggy appearance. Stop down to f4 and the lens is sensational. My advice is to go for the f4 L IS for a number of reasons.

1. The f2.8 is a monster of a lens and is a heavy beast. I am a big fella and can manage it for long periods but I now regret not buying the f4. It also adds a hell of a lot of weight to your camera bag.

2. The IS on the f2.8 is the old version. It's still excellent but the newer IS version on the f4 is superior.

3. The image quality on the f4 is at least as good as the f2.8

4. The f4 is cheaper

5. If you do eventually get the 5D2, its fantastic high ISO performance will more than make up for the 1 stop reduction in aperture of the f4 compared to the f2.8.

Personally, I really wish I had bought the f4 instead of the f2.8. I am also awaiting the 5D2 so I am hoping the 2.8 will perform better at maximum aperture on my new camera. I would imagine the f4 will be great wide open on the 5D2.

There are a few of advantages to the f2.8 (apart from the obvious 1 stop aperture difference). It will give a slightly brighter vewfinder image compared to the f4. In really low light its AF may perform a bit better due to its light gathering potential. Also, you can isolate your subject more due to its shallower depth of field... BUT, bear in mind that when upgrading to the 5D2 you will also get a much shallower depth of field anyway compared to the 350D because of the sensor size difference. The f2.8 can be used with the 2x extender and still retain AF (but I advise against it because the quality is dire). The f2.8 is also much better for attacking people as it packs a mean punch when clouting someone over the head with it.

Jamie,

Your lens needs to go in for a service, I have owned my 2.8 IS for six years, I have never had a foggy appearance and it is every bit as sharp as my 24-70, it is not as sharp as my 300 2.8IS but is not far behind. It is extremely sharp wide open and works well with a 2x converter too (very far from dire, do you have the matched 2X MkII?) though I don't use that option. It is superb on my FF and on my 1.3 crop cameras. I cannot fault my lens, would very strongly recommend it to anybody taking photography seriously and as far as my experiences go it has absolutely no negatives, oh apart from the paint comes off a bit too easily.

For studio and location portraits a 2.8 is the slowest lens I would use, how are you going to get shallow dof with an f4?

Take care, Scott.

Scott, don't look now, but the f4.0 looks a *bit* sharper, at The-Digital-Picture ISO shots, at least:

(link)

Not that the 2.8 is a sharpness slouch, but I think the f4.0 is a bit sharper. The only downside I see with both at f4.0 is more light fall-off for the f4.0.

Go up through the f-stops, or different focal lengths, I think it's a slight but consistant advantage. The f4.0 also seems to suffer less than the 2.8 with the 1.4x or 2.0x extenders, though I think it loses autofocus with the 2.0x.

Interesting comparison Mendel, on my screens if you adjust the contrast to get the same image they are just about ithe same, they are certainly very close. I have seen so many arguments about how the f4 is so much better than the 2.8, it does make me throw my toys out of the pram :-) Mine must be a very good copy because it is blindingly sharp given a subject with any contrast at all.

And like I said f4 really won't cut it for portraits sometimes.

Take care, Scott.

EXIF for above picture

1D, 70-200 f2.8 IS @ 200mm (effective 260), f2.8 and 1/80 sec, handheld, AI Servo focus manual point selection for front eye. No image adjustments, this is how it came out of the camera.

Take care, Scott.

Here's one from me. Picture on left, actual pixels crop on right, 70-200 f/2.8 IS at 200mm f/2.8, 1/200 second at ISO 200, EOS 5D on monopod. This has been processed, but the original is just about as sharp. The flowers were growing in water, and I was unable to get any closer. The butterfly's wings were going nonstop. It took a lot of photos to get one where they looked still.

Scott,

I think my lens is fine. I have never used it on a FF or 1.3 crop camera. When I said foggy appearance, a more accurate description would be that the images appear as if they have been taken through glass. This only happens when shooting wide open at 2.8. I have seen other reviews and samples from 1.6 crop cameras which display similar symptoms. At f4 and beyond the lens is superb. f2.8 isn't really bad, just noticeably much worse than other apertures. I am quite confident that it will perform much better on my 5D2.

If you are going to do event and concert photography, I would definitely spring for the 2.8. I got this shot in near darkness when all but one of the stage lights failed during a campus play:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6684206

It was shot hand-held, of course.

--Lannie

I should have said the 2.8 IS.

--Lannie

Jamie,

That sounds very strange, normally 1.6 crop factor cameras show lenses at their best because they only use the sharpest center area. I really am interested, why do you think it will perform much better on the 5D MkII? It seems counter intuitive to me, I profess to not reading much in the way of lens reviews, preferring to relay my personal experiences, so am not familiar with the examples you mention. I was very impressed by Mendel's link though, I thought the most noteworthy difference showing up was the additional moire of the 2.8, fortunately mine does not do that so I am confident my lens is a better example than their test one was. Do you use any filters? I don't on the 70-200 but do on my 16-35 to help the weather sealing, the 16-35 is my least sharp and contrasty lens (it is still very good though!) but I use it most often, the focal range is perfect on the 1.3 crop for my use, I will upgrade next year to the MkII of that but would have no interest in changing my 70-200 if Canon were to update it.

Take care, Scott.

Scott,

Good question. To be honest, I have no technical theory as to why my lens should perform better on the 5D2... just a hopeful gut feeling (not exactly a factual answer, I know). I know the crop cameras shoot through the sweet spot. I rarely use filters of any sort (I hate the things) so that isn't the trouble. There is a review somewhere that also has the same findings as me on a crop camera (can't remember which one at present). I suppose I'll find out how the 5D2 performs in a few weeks time when it arrives.

Hi Jamie,

I was expecting something slightly more empirical than that :-), at least you are honest enough to say it is a "hopeful gut feeling".

I do hope you are happy with the lens on your new camera but if you aren't then I strongly recommend a Canon service, the quality control is not what it used to be and with 28 or so elements in there it doesn't take much of a misalignment to have a negative effect. I had issues with my 24-70, the front ring fell off, twice, and I snapped my 16-35 in two. Canon fixed them both, the 24-70 was free and the 16-35 was surprisingly cheap considering it was in several pieces and the circuit boards and wires were broken, around $150 plus postage on fixed price servicing.

Have fun with the 5D MkII and see you around the site, take care, Scott.

Scott,

Yes, I was suggesting that the F4 is sharper. But that was parroting what I read elsewhere. (It might be true, I'm too lazy to redo my research but I remember it being written in several serious sounding reviews...) That said my vote still goes to the F4/IS because of size, weight and price.

Regards, Matthijs.

Hi guys, thank you all for your responses. Very informative. Thanks mendel for that link, never new about it. In fact the F4 does look a bit sharper than the F2.8. That said, the only reason why I would want the 2.8 is the shallower DOF which it offers which keeps me at a stand still because I work on a lot of outdoor portraiture and a 2.8 aperture is definitely nice .

Dilemmas, dilemmas!

Every serious photographer should own the f/2.8L, for all the reasons cited here. It is a truly mystical lens.

Looking at the numbers on photozone.de for the f/4 version... it looks like it can match and beat many primes. But I have the f/2.8 IS and see the real world results and have no complaints, and cannot imagine the f/4 being that much better. Maybe the f/4 model is better, but the f/2.8 can certainly achieve professional results and won't disappoint.

If the F4 is sharper its very minimal and probably not noticeable in real world situations and I would not let that be what sways me one way or the other. My 2.8 is amazing and super sharp, it blows me away but all of the 70-200 L's are great, it just depends on what you use it for. If outdoors and traveling I would probably want the F4 but for indoor or portraits I would go with the 2.8.

I posted a couple of bokeh examples here:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00OyJr

Both are with the f2.8 IS, one shot wide open and one stopped down to f4.0. Of course the f4.0's bokeh is likely a bit different than the stopped down f2.8, but I would think it'll be similar.

Frankly, I don't think the lens is your problem. All the problems you mention look more akin to a low-end camera body that you're pushing past its Peter Principle. If you're going to be a pro ... ISO intergrity has improved markedly in the last couple of generations. I was told with your model camera, don't push it past 800. I use a 5D and I don't have a problem pushing it to iso 1600 with my L-series lenses. You can't see the difference in smaller (8X10) photos. Also, are you shooting for newsprint or slick magazines or online? If you're shooting for newsprint, no matter how sharp your photo, it won't show up on the page. If you're shooting for slick or online that pays, you need to invest in a decent camera body and a couple of L-series lenses.to take you from short to long. Do it all at once so you don't suffer the pain. The 70-200 is a splendid, very popular here among pros and amateurs alike. Several guys in my camera club use it as their normal lens. The I and pros I work with use the 24-105 L series for a normal. They're all pricey, but so is food. You can wait for the next 5D, but from what I've seen, it's more bells and whistles that do virtually nothing for the serious pro. And if you're going to spend that kind of money, get the 1D Mark III. Frankly, a Canon G9 would shoot better than the body you have. If you're not shooting panoramas and you don't need a full-frame camera, consider the 40D, which is dropping in price because the 50D just hit a few markets. 5Ds are dropping too to make room for the 5D II. I saw a 5D at the most expensive camera store in St. Louis for less than a 50D. Yikes. Neverthe less, if you're going to shoot pro, you need to pack like one so that you're ready for anything.

"Frankly, a Canon G9 would shoot better than the body you have. "

Er.... I assume you were joking, right?

Hi Tonio,

70-200mm F4 L IS is a great lens and I love mine!

for almost half the price if 2.8, it has just as good optics, bulit, is lightweight, focuses just as fast and has a much better newer generation Image Stabilizer.

U must get the 2.8 version if you think u'll be shooting 80% of your photos at 2.8 which nobody will.

Cheers!

Ujwal

Normally I would vote for more aperture but I often shoot from a boat. Many times I have plenty of light while shooting images of surfing, sailing, water skiing and wake sports but without IS I struggle to pick focus points and get them aimed at what I want. I own the 70-200 f4 but have also used the f4 IS & f2.8 IS, I found that with IS focusing became less of a struggle. Like everyone I would prefer to have it all but if I had to choose I would go with the f4 IS. People that take a 70-200 hiking also prefer the smaller size and weight of the f4. Jeffrey

>> Im after a 70-200mm lens. I shoot mostly studio and location portraiture but I >> occasionally do concert and event photography (and I plan to do more in the future)

From your requirement it sounds to me like you would need low-light-action-stopping lens So I would save for 70-200mm f2.8 IS

Everything you write suggests that you simply must have a 2.8 aperture. The faster AF in low light, the shallower DoF and the ability to have higher shutter speed all indicate that 2.8 is a must have.

A personal note: I had all versions and the f/2.8 IS was the one I kept. I shoot a lot of portraits and a bit of sport. And for me, all the above factors proved to be much more important than the added weight. Last year I was tempted to try the f/4 IS but after 3 months of having both (and comparing both) I sold it.

I also do not agree with the notion that there are significant differences in sharpness between the versions (assuming, of course, that you do not have a lemon and that you calibrated it). They are very subtle and ONLY visible if you pixel peep. Even then, you'll struggle to find them.

Here is an example from a recent sport game. Naturally, all of it was shot at f/2.8.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

100% crop. No PP.

100% crop. NR and sharpening applied.

You also said: "The 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS is out of my budget. [...] (even though I plan to upgrade to a 5D MKII next year)."

IMHO that is a wrong move as glass should have priority over body. Why not the 5D Mk I? It's still a body with great IQ. Just look at the recent FF tests in DPR (D3, D700, A900 and 1Ds Mk III) where it is compared to.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Yakim what noise reduction software did you use? Result is amazing. I have only used Canon-DPP, not so impressed.

It's DPP v 3.4.1.1. It's the only software I use.

BTW, I always use sharpening on every image (AA too strong I guess) and at ISO 800 and above I always use NR.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

i used the 2.8 without the is for years because i couldnt afford it .but then i said the hell with it and went out and got the 2.8 with is.all i can say is what was i thinking? its a world of diffrence to me and i wouldnt shoot any other way.its worth the money.it may hurt for a bit but you will make it back with the photos it will produce.i say go for it.you only live once!

I have the 70-200 F4L IS and it was price over the extra stop. The IQ of the F4 IS is top notch and the model I have has the newer IS (4 stops). I am absolutely happy with it with no regrets of not getting the 2.8.

In the future I might get the 2.8 or I might get it's upgrade if it gets one (I am sure it will). This will be when I move to full Frame 1Ds series from my 40D.

If you do get the F4 IS you won't be disappointed.

have you checked out the sigma lineup with OS? i was playing with one in my local camera shop and its amazing i have a 20d so a crop factor of 1.6 which makes the 120-400 at full zoom a 620mm lens and i shot in Av the camera wanted 1/40s so i thought what the heck and tried it out... perfectly clear and sharp as a tak long and short i bought it there and then and at about 900 bucks its half the price of the white lens!

Well, I saw my friend today and he brought round the lens, and I took a few quick shots - I must say, I'm quite impressed, though as all the shots were indoors I couldn't really assess how I might use it for other photos.

Here's a sample shot, though, which I'm quite keen on (as it's our latest addition, a 10 week old kitten called Daisy):



Thanks again for all advice!

Edit: whoops, wrong topic (I meant to reply to my own topic on the 70-200/4L and chose the wrong tab.... sorry!)