Canon 70-200mm F4 is vs 70-200mm F2.8 L Non IS

[revrange]

Hi

What do you guys think between these two lens?

I am looking for an longer zoom then then i current have (24-70L) and this length would be good.

One slight worry is i am off to le mans classic later in the year, i was going to pair the lens with an extender, but worried about the low light performance of an F4.

However having spoken to numerous shops i hear the 70-200 F4 is is a sharper lens and has the benefit of IS.

[mrdemon]

I use the 70-200F4 IS for motor sport it's awesome.
I don't use an extender as I also have the 300MMF4 again a great motorsport lens.

I use a crop so if you are full frame you will find 200mm no where near enough zoom.

weight is a big advantage and never had an issue with F4 plus the lens is sharp as nails at F4.

best lens in my bag

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 20th March 09:23

[smack]

The moment you stick an x1.4 extender on the F4 is it going to F5.6, or F8 if using a x2, so in low light it isn't going to be much use if you want to use it for motorsport.

Sounds like the shops as just talking rubbish, take it with a grain of salt. The glass is in the 2.8L has always known as a sharp lens, and that is why it is so popular in the pro world. There are loads of lens tests on websites, with test shots, where you can make your mind up of the difference.

[revrange]

mrdemon said:

I use the 70-200F4 IS for motor sport it's awesome.
I don't use an extender as I also have the 300MMF4 again a great motorsport lens.

I use a crop so if you are full frame you will find 200mm no where near enough zoom.

weight is a big advantage and never had an issue with F4 plus the lens is sharp as nails at F4.

best lens in my bag

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 20th March 09:23

Yeah i have a 7D, so it should give me with either 1.4x or 2x a great zoom.

I also help out with a friend at weddings so weight would be nice there, although again in a dark church i am thinking will the 2.8 come in handy?

[revrange]

smack said:

The moment you stick an x1.4 extender on the F4 is it going to F5.6, or F8 if using a x2, so in low light it isn't going to be much use if you want to use it for motorsport.

Sounds like the shops as just talking rubbish, take it with a grain of salt. The glass is in the 2.8L has always known as a sharp lens, and that is why it is so popular in the pro world. There are loads of lens tests on websites, with test shots, where you can make your mind up of the difference.

yes i did wonder if the F4 was so great why people didn't just buy that one! The guy at Wex was the most pro F4 guy i have spoken with but you are right 99% of pros run with a 2.8 and in low light the 2.8 will be very welcome.

[Mr Will]

It's worth bearing in mind that the f4 version is a smaller, lighter lens than the f2.8 version - useful if you are going to be dragging it around all day.

The IS should make it usable in lower light than the f2.8 version if subject motion doesn't become an issue. What shutter speeds you want to use and which end of the zoom you favour will make a big difference here.

ISO capabilities of your body are another big factor - on a 5DIII you'd just turn it up a notch but a 7D will struggle more in that regard.

Finally consider your autofocus system - a 7D can only autofocus down to f5.6. Put a 2x extender on the f4 version and you'll lose autofocus. The f2,8 doesn't suffer the same problem. The f2.8 version also allows you to take advantage of your higher accuracy autofocus points when used without an extender.

On balance, I'd probably say go for the f2.8 version in your situation (or do the PH thing and recommend a budget increase to the f2.8 IS...)

[Gemm]

It's an old question of whether you benefit more from IS or larger aperture. Write down pros and cons of both and compare!

[smack]

revrange said:

yes i did wonder if the F4 was so great why people didn't just buy that one! The guy at Wex was the most pro F4 guy i have spoken with but you are right 99% of pros run with a 2.8 and in low light the 2.8 will be very welcome.

The F4L is a very good lens, but to put it in car terms it the Boxster v's a 911 argument. Some people are perfectly happy with the Boxster as it does what they need, others want the faster 911 so buy it, and others secretly want a 911, but can't, so kid themselves the Boxster is just a good

Not everyone has the cash to invest in the top of the line, so there is compromise. So, F4L, very good performance, has IS (good), light, and good value for money. 2.8L, heavy (relative here, it is compared to consumer lenses and the F4 it is, but a tiddler against prime telephotos), fast, perfectly mated to use extenders, but pricey.

If you are shooting in bright light at a fast shutter speed IS doesn't matter. If you are shooting motorsport, panning shots, you don't use IS. But if you want to shoot in a church in low light (and stationary), you want IS, or a fast lens, or even better, both.

I personally have a 2.8 IS. 10 years old, spent loads of time being used in the the rain, dropped many times (last time, 2 months ago on to concrete snapped my 1.4 extender in two, but camera and the 2.8 survived), bashed up when other lenses would have died long ago, and still works perfectly. Don't know how much it cost back then, and it no longer matters.

Edited by smack on Thursday 20th March 10:39

[24lemons]

I use a 70-200 F2.8 non IS with a 1.4x extender. For most of the spectator areas at Le Mans it's plenty long enough and when the light begins to fade I dispose of the extender and take advantage of the 2.8 aperture. I've actually managed generally sharper results with this setup than with my old 100-400mm IS.

[mrdemon]

I would still go F4IS

it's one of Canons best lens and a lot sharper than the older 2.8.

the 2.8mk1 is old now hence the new mk2 2.8IS and that's £2k but it does have cash back.

weddings buy a 6D :-)

so like a Poster said the Boxster is a poor mans 911, the mk1 2.8 is like owning a 996 not a 991 turbo.

rather have a new Boxster than a 996 :-)people kid themselves that owning any 911 is good ;-p

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 20th March 10:51

[nellyleelephant]

I assumed we were talking about the current 70-200 2.8 non IS not the mki 70-200 IS??

[revrange]

Mr Will said:

It's worth bearing in mind that the f4 version is a smaller, lighter lens than the f2.8 version - useful if you are going to be dragging it around all day.

The IS should make it usable in lower light than the f2.8 version if subject motion doesn't become an issue. What shutter speeds you want to use and which end of the zoom you favour will make a big difference here.

ISO capabilities of your body are another big factor - on a 5DIII you'd just turn it up a notch but a 7D will struggle more in that regard.

Finally consider your autofocus system - a 7D can only autofocus down to f5.6. Put a 2x extender on the f4 version and you'll lose autofocus. The f2,8 doesn't suffer the same problem. The f2.8 version also allows you to take advantage of your higher accuracy autofocus points when used without an extender.

On balance, I'd probably say go for the f2.8 version in your situation (or do the PH thing and recommend a budget increase to the f2.8 IS...)

You can pick up a Mk1 70-200 IS for around 800-900 second hand but a few places still have stock of new for around 1000-1100. So yes the optics won't be as good as the Mk2 but still one hell of a lens.

[revrange]

24lemons said:

I use a 70-200 F2.8 non IS with a 1.4x extender. For most of the spectator areas at Le Mans it's plenty long enough and when the light begins to fade I dispose of the extender and take advantage of the 2.8 aperture. I've actually managed generally sharper results with this setup than with my old 100-400mm IS.

Thanks for that, useful information from someone who been in the field!

[revrange]

smack said:

The F4L is a very good lens, but to put it in car terms it the Boxster v's a 911 argument. Some people are perfectly happy with the Boxster as it does what they need, others want the faster 911 so buy it, and others secretly want a 911, but can't, so kid themselves the Boxster is just a good

Not everyone has the cash to invest in the top of the line, so there is compromise. So, F4L, very good performance, has IS (good), light, and good value for money. 2.8L, heavy (relative here, it is compared to consumer lenses and the F4 it is, but a tiddler against prime telephotos), fast, perfectly mated to use extenders, but pricey.

If you are shooting in bright light at a fast shutter speed IS doesn't matter. If you are shooting motorsport, panning shots, you don't use IS. But if you want to shoot in a church in low light (and stationary), you want IS, or a fast lens, or even better, both.

I personally have a 2.8 IS. 10 years old, spent loads of time being used in the the rain, dropped many times (last time, 2 months ago on to concrete snapped my 1.4 extender in two, but camera and the 2.8 survived), bashed up when other lenses would have died long ago, and still works perfectly. Don't know how much it cost back then, and it no longer matters.

Edited by smack on Thursday 20th March 10:39

Yes i have come across that many times before, where people pretend the £500 items is as good as the £2k, i am not one, and i am thinking a few months heavy saving maybe the solution here.

[Craikeybaby]

I have the f2.8 non IS and I find it a great lens, all of my published motorsport images have been taken with it - at the shutter speeds used for motorsport you're not going to be using the IS.

I've also used the f4 version, as it is a lot lighter when travelling, AF isn't as good, but the IQ is still good.

If I was buying again I'd be seriously tempted by the 70-300L, OK, it isn't constant aperture, but the IQ is meant to be really good and you always need more length for motorsport shots.

[24lemons]

revrange said:

24lemons said:

I use a 70-200 F2.8 non IS with a 1.4x extender. For most of the spectator areas at Le Mans it's plenty long enough and when the light begins to fade I dispose of the extender and take advantage of the 2.8 aperture. I've actually managed generally sharper results with this setup than with my old 100-400mm IS.

Thanks for that, useful information from someone who been in the field!

I'm not sure if the link will work but the track-based shots in this gallery were taken with that setup. There are better photographers out there I will point out but you get the idea of what you can get.

https://www.facebook.com/oliver.wylie/media_set?se...

[Phunk]

I'd seriously look at the Tamron alternative, it's cracking value for money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI

[PleasantPeasant]

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC?

95% of the Canon IS lens for less than the price of the Canon F4 lens.

I've got one for Nikon and love it.

[MonkeyHanger]

A word of advice.

Don't try the Mark 2 f2.8IS

You will want one, then you will buy one.

I did

[kybo]

What about the Sigma alternative?

I have the non-OS version and if I can get sharp images from it, it must be a sharp lens