70-200 IS 2.8L or 4 L

Which of the 2 would make the best lens for my Rebel xti. I do street and portraits a lot in all lights and

significantly in low lights?

thanks in advance. I can stretch to 1575 only if I have to .... unless it is worth it.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens =$ 1,025.00

Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens =$ 1,574.00

For street, unless you really need _one_ additional stop, it seems to me that the lighter weight and smaller size could be distinct

advantages - unless your notion of street photography is different than mine...

 

Photography is full of trade-offs... :-)

 

Dan

If you can afford the 2.8, get the 2.8.

You'll never find yourself in a low light situation saying, "I wish I'd gotten the f/4"

Alternatively, after carrying the f4 around all day, you'll probably never find yourself saying "I wish I'd gotten the f2.8".

 

Neither lens is especially inconspicuous, but the 2.8 is certainly bigger and more visible.

 

BTW most street photographers use wide or normal lenses. Paparazzi use telephotos.

 

For portraits, the 85/1.8 would be a better choice. For more traditional street work, on 1.6x DSLR a 24, 28 or 35mm prime would be more appropriate.

if you get the 2.8 recommend you also get a little red wagon to lug all that glass around. paint the wagon black so it will be less conspicuous on the street. i know...use a shopping cart -- that way you'll blend right in

 

for what it's worth the f4 IS version is probably the sharpest (of the three). if you're planning to shoot in very low light you can always take a tripod. if you know you'll always be shooting in very low light then the 2.8 might be the way to go -- however, you will still need a tripod, so...

 

(everybody for 2 blocks in any direction knows when there's a photog using a canon telephoto lens, no matter which one it is. you can forget about being inconspicuous).

 

to me, the f2.8 is for the sidelines at a pro sporting event, red carpet, presidential speech, etc. the f4 is for most regular applications

 

i'd get the f4 and spend the money saved on good walking shoes and a snazzy new camera bag (and a crappy looking shoulder bag to put the snazzy camera bag in)

The f/4 is very sharp. Even it's considered "light" after walking the whole day with it my hands were sored :-).

here's a shot taken with the f4 IS after sunset:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7554967&size=lg

 

Here's a couple crops:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7555006&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7555005&size=lg

 

the ISO was 200. shutter speed and f-stop aren't that bad (1/200th at f6.3) so these shots aren't the best example of how the lens performs in extremely low light. however, shot was taken after the sun had gone below the treeline. really, with today's cameras (i used a 40D) and good IS you can shoot handheld almost until it's night.

 

using the 2.8 version will only buy you a few minutes more of handheld shooting before you have to get the tripod out. for red carpet and sports, etc, 2.8 is de rigueur and most photogs keep the lens at f2.8 and adjust the ISO as needed. i don't think the average street shooter needs this type of performance.

Bob wrote: "BTW most street photographers use wide or normal lenses. Paparazzi use telephotos."

 

Great way to say it. I'm going to remember that one! :-)

 

I shoot FF and I never use anything longer than a 24-105 for street, and I often (especially in tight spaces) use a 17-40. To me

there is something a bit creepy about surreptitious photography of people in public places from large distances with long lenses.

"Paparazzi" seems like too nice a word for it, perhaps?

I think using a telephoto lens vs. wide angle/normal lens in street photography is simply a better tool/focal length to capture candids then not and 85mm or longer is what you want for flattering portraits anyway? Doesn't mean your "Paparazzi"? That's just ridiculous. Do it right the first time, and get the 2.8 and then you won't have any regrets.

f/2.8 = Improved bokeh = Some more "WoW" responses!

 

Okay, maybe "wow" rather than "WoW!" for the $500 difference in price.

I have the 70-200/4 IS on my 400D and I love it. But it's not a low light lens.

 

It is cheaper, lighter than the 2.8. The question is what you prefer.

 

Regards, Matthijs.

You might ask in the Street Photography forum about the ethics of using telephoto lenses for street work. I don't think You'll get a lot of support. If you look at the classic street photographers like Cartrier-Bresson, Winogrand, Arbus etc., none of them hid and used telephoto lenses.

 

Some consider the use of telephoto lenses to be unethical and sneaky. There's actually a law in California which restricts the use of telephoto lenses by paparazzi ( section 1708.8 of the California Civil Code)

I think there is more debate regarding the EF 70-200L F/2.8 IS versus the EF 70-200L F/4 IS than any other two

lenses made. From the reviews and forum posts I read when I was doing my research on these lenses, I was able to

conclude that nearly everone agrees on the following:

 

1) 70-200 is a key focal range.

2) Both lenses are very, very good.

3) The F/2.8 version is substantially larger and heavier.

4) The F/4 version is less expensive.

5) While there wasn't a consensus regarding which lens is sharper or had better IQ, a slight majority seemed to think

the F/4 was sharper.

 

What did seem to be clear from all of my research is that both lenses are exceptional. So how to choose? I finally

decided to purchase both so I could compare them head to head. I was prepared to keep both if each had relative

advantages over the other. And it was a tough decision, but in the end I decided to return the F/4 and to keep the

F/2.8.

 

I did not perform any objective type technical tests with either lens (there are plenty of reviews that do this). I

wanted to find out which lens best fit the type of photography I do, and all of my analysis was entirely subjective. My

conclusions were:

 

1) The F/4 version probably is slightly sharper, but I didn't think the difference was enough to tilt the decision in favor

of the F/4. The F/2.8 version is very sharp as well, and I would feel comfortable in saying that it is the sharpest zoom

lens I have used with the exception of the F/4 version.

 

2) I like the IQ of the F/2.8 better than the F/4, but again the difference is so neglible between the two that I couldn't

make my final decision on the basis of IQ.

 

3) The F/2.8 is substantially larger and heavier than the F/4, and if I expected to carry this lens around all day

mounted on the camera and with the strap around my neck while sightseeing, I would have decided in favor of the

F/4. But to me the 70-200 focal range even on an FF camera is too long for a walk around lens. I will stick with my

24-105L for that purpose.

 

4) The additional fstop makes a huge difference in poor lighting. The 70-200 focal range is generally too short for

wildlife and outdoor event photography, but it is ideal for indoor event photography, where lighting is frequently less

than ideal. I recently shot an outdoor wedding that was scheduled just at sunset, where I used two bodies, a 5D with

a 24-105L F/4 IS and a 30D with the 70-200L F/2.8 IS. Towards the end of the wedding, as we lost the light, I

switched to a 50 F/1.4 on the 5D, but I was able to continue with the 70-200L F/2.8 on the other camera, where I am

sure I would have been out of luck with the F/4 version.

 

In the end the two factors that made the decision for me was: 1) the additional weight of the F/2.8 is not a problem

since I don't expect to carry this lens around all day, but instead I expect to use it at most for a few hours at one

time, and 2) the larger apeture... as Richard says above "You'll never find yourself in a low light situation saying, 'I

wish I'd gotten the f/4.'"

 

If the price difference doesn't decide the matter for you, then I think you should evaluate both lenses to make up your

mind. I would suggest renting them, or buying both and returning the one you decide not to keep like I did. It really

depends on how you expect to use them, but if the extra cost and weight do not deter you, then I don't see how you

can go wrong with the faster lens.

bob

 

i find it strange that you automatically associate the use of telephoto lenses (on the street) with being a paparazzi. it's more than strange that you presume that a photographer who uses a telephoto lens would hide when using it.

Some posters state, "If you can afford the 2.8, get the 2.8. You'll never find yourself in a low light situation saying, "I wish I'd gotten the f/4"

 

I will add my view to that. If you buy the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, you will probably never leave it home because it is too heavy and is really unbalanced on an XTi as is the f/2.8 IS model.

 

Seriously, rent or borrow a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and carry it around for a day of shooting with your XTi before you make your decision.

 

I am a firm proponent of the f/4L IS lens as an all around zoom which is light enough to be carried anywhere. I use it as part of a two-camera setup along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and I absolutely LOVE the combination.

Madhavi, upon rereading your original question and all of the other posts including my first post, are you sure that the

70-200 focal range is really what you need for "street and portrait", especially on an XTi? I find that 70-200 is not

wide enough for most street photography on a FF 5D, except maybe for sneaking a candid once in awhile, and while

I have shot a few of those myself, I guess, but generally I would agree with Bob Atkins regarding the paparazzi

aspect. I don't do very much portrait work, but it would also seem a bit long for portrait, again on an XTi with the 1.6x

crop factor.

My 2 cents:

 

A. Get the f4 for ease of portability. I think it gives you 4 stops with IS, making it a more even match with the 2.8 in

low light, and the DOF difference at 70mm (the more useful zoom for street) is only about a foot at a subject distance

of 20 feet on the XTi.

 

B. THEN get the $350 85mm 1.8, and bring it along only if you expect low light or need smaller DOF.

 

The result? You've saved a couple hundred bucks, your total weight for the 2 lenses is lower than the 2.8 alone, and

you get a "discreet" street lens option and a killer portrait lens.

My simple answer to the question is: You can not use an F4 lens at F2.8.

 

Should you find yourself in a position that you need F2.8, you are stuffed if you only have F4. That is my fundamental criterion. Others have a different guiding light.

 

I can see great value in having an F4 and an F2.8 version of the 70 to 200 series. For me that choice is the F4LIS and the F2.8L (non IS).

 

For Street Photography I usually have a 50mmF1.4 on my 5D. The widest FoV for any street work is my 85mm on my 20D. You might use the term `Street Photography` differently to me.

 

I think that White is definitely the wrong colour for street work.

 

WW

"While there wasn't a consensus regarding which lens is sharper or had better IQ, a slight majority seemed to think the

F/4 was sharper."

 

I'd say that if you look at a variety of sources and reports, it is clear that both lenses are quite "sharp" enough and that

any differences between them in this regard are truly trivial in real photographic terms.

 

I like to say that trying to decide between these two lenses on the basis of sharpness is like trying to decide between a

dollar bill and four quarters on the basis of value.

 

Dan

My 40D takes wonderful pictures with the f4. I believe I read it has a newer generation IS. The 2.8 is a little too weighty for me, I'm afraid.

A little side note. Twice the speed; twice the weight. 27 oz for the 4 (IS); 56 oz for the 2.8 same.

"I like to say that trying to decide between these two lenses on the basis of sharpness is like trying to decide between a dollar bill and four quarters on the basis of value."

 

Dan, I would certainly agree. My assement was that more people in the forums and reviews that I researched leaned towards the F/4 being sharper, but that was not a scientific poll. My own assement was that if the F/4 was sharper, it was not significant enough for me to decide in favor of the F/4 version, and I ultimately went with the F/2.8.

Bob Atkins stated that Cal Civ Code Sec. 1708.8 restricts the use of telephoto lenses.

 

The statutes actually reads that one is liable for criminal trespass when the defendant knowingly enters the property of another without permission to take a picture, recording, or video when the plaintiff is engaged in personal or familial activities.

 

It says nothing about telephoto lenses.

 

Get the 2.8 IS, why settle.

> Bob Atkins stated that Cal Civ Code Sec. 1708.8 restricts the use of telephoto lenses.

 

> The statutes actually reads that one is liable for criminal trespass when the defendant knowingly enters the property of another without permission to take a picture, recording, or video when the plaintiff is engaged in personal or familial activities.

 

> It says nothing about telephoto lenses.

 

I think Bob could mean Cal Civ Code Sec 1709.8. Go and check out. :-))

i would get the 2.8L IS, you will never second guess yourself after the purchase because it doesnt get any better then the 2.8L IS in a zoom lens.