The age old question: 70-200 f/4 or 2.8?

<p>I know this question tends to pop up a lot on these forums. However it seems most people want to know about bokeh, or IQ differences. It also seems to me that most people tend to come to the conclusion that these lenses are all outstanding in those terms, so I will leave that question to other posts.<br>

My question is a little different. Currently, I am shooting a 5dmkII with a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (which, as you can imagine, is frustratingly slow to focus, and not great in terms of low light performance). I am shooting mostly weddings, portraits, and sports. Now to my actual question...can anyone comment on the real world performance differences of the four 70-200mm lenses in low light settings? (i.e. a church) And their performance with a teleconverter? Is the f/4 a good performer in a lower light situation, or would it be more frustration than the saved money is worth? <br>

If I can "get away" with the f/4 non-IS, I would be happy. But I am a bigger fan of being happy with my lenses and images. :) Thanks for any comments.</p>

<p>If your looking to isolate an object usually the f2.8 versions will be better, the only one I have not had is the f4 none IS, I like them all, but I settled on the f4 IS, but I do miss the 2.8 IS version some times, the f4 IS does well in low light by the way, but the 2.8 will always do better in low light. Take a look at this article on my blog <a href="http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/2009/03/sharpest-zoom-ever-ef-70-200-f4-l-is.html">Sharpest zoom ever</a> hope it helps. Good luck.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>i dont get it you buy the 5dii 21mp,$2700,and pair with 75-300?well i dont think you can go worng with ether one the 5dii such a good performer at high iso you well be fine with just f4 and some people say it is sharper than 2.8 ,and it is lighter but 2.8 will focus better in low light,i would try them both first before buying.</p>

<p>Brian, while I'm sure that most people would recommend the 70-200/2.8 IS for your applications, I have found the 70-200/4 IS to perform marvelously in low light. The IS effectively gives you four more f/stops of speed for static subjects, and the lens is much lighter and more compact than its faster cousin.</p>

<p>The person to make the final call is still (and only) you :) However, if your question is:"which one is better in low light?" -- answer is the 2.8, if the question is :"can I get away with the F4.0 version?" -- answer is "most likely yes", but that's ultimately for you to decide. If you were doing landscapes on week-long backpacking trips -- I'd recommend 4.0 hands down, but for weddings 2.8 is what you need.</p>

<p>Church interiors vary greatly in the amount of light available. When shooting in churches, I've never found myself saying, "Gee, this 70-200 f/2.8 lets in too much light". More often than not, for handheld shots, I find switching to a prime with a bigger aperture is the solution that works for me.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. @Yuri, you're right, the decision is up to me, and unfortunately, I am a bit indecisive. :) This is a big reason why your input is so valuable to me. I also really appreciate your insight into the backpacking issue, as that will likely be something that will come up for me from time to time.<br>

@Faleh, I know, it's almost a sin to pair the 5dmkii with the 75-300, but I am relatively new to this, and the 5dmkii is my second camera. (the first is an XSi). I was lucky enough to be able to get a 5dmkii recently for a cheaper price and although the lens issue was in the back of my mind, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get my hands on the 5d. I figured I wouldn't need the long lens right away, but I have now booked 3 weddings for next year and making sure I have the lenses (and know how to use them!) is becoming more of a pressing issue.<br>

So, I think after reading everyone's responses, and given the new rebates with which Canon just came out, I think I will go for the 2.8 IS, and if I find down the road I need the 4, it won't be too much of a hit to my wallet. Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p>I think for weddings the 2.8 IS would be better than the F4IS because you will need all the light you can get and the 2.8 will allow a shallower depth of field to isolate subjects against backgrounds. The downsides are that it costs more and it's heavy, so the day is going to require a bit more stamina and you're going to get tired sooner. Yes the 2.8 is better, but is the difference big enough to overcome the downsides? That's for you to decide.<br>

Neill</p>

<p>I have the f/2.8. It's low light performance is great at weddings, especially indoors. I would have picked up the IS version but the extra $600 was out of my league at the time.</p>

One stop of light will NEVER make up for subject motion within IS, so you should not even consider the f:4 lens for your application. Depending upon your budget it would be beter to get the 70-200 2.8 instead of the 70-200 f:4 IS. Never underestimate the power of light especially with one stop being twice as much..

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>If ever there was a 2.8 IS candidate it is you so forget the others. They really don't work well with the 2x tele, yes you can use it but just cropping the 5D image will give you just as good IQ whilst retaining faster focus and a brighter viewfinder, I have not used the 1.4 TC on the 70-200 but it is supposed to be better.</p>

don't think you can 'get away' with the non-IS f4 in low light (without jacking the ISO way up --- this would not quality as getting away with anything, though)

 

the f4 IS focuses very well in low light. have not used other 70-200s so cannot compare AF. canon's 1.4 tc II produces excellent results with this lens.

 

i almost always benefit from IS. just yesterday i used the f4 IS with 1.4 tc and was shooting at speeds between 160th-400th. still, the IS helped. i (myself) would not get usable results at modest shutter speeds w/o IS, especially with a 1.4 tc. (i'm talking about hard-sharp, not kinda sharp -- i can't handhold that steady)

 

optically, the f4 (IS) is the best

<p>Brian, functionally the f2.8 IS lens is the best choice, but have you ever held a heavy lens for several hours? My suggestion is that you rent the f2.8 lens first and then shoot it hand-held for 2-3 hrs to see how well you can handle the weight. If you find that the weight doesn't bother your wrist or arm then buy it. </p>

<p>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS may be the best telephoto zoom in the Canon lineup. Get that if you can swing the cash. Otherwise, the nonIS version is great (and the IS is not needed for fast action). I hear the f/4 versions are great, but I know that I see the pros shooting the big boy f/2.8 at sporting events.<br>

For weddings, I thought that still the 24-70mm f/2.8L "brick" was the weapon of choice. Sharp, with beautiful color and contrast - a great portrait lens.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS may be the best telephoto zoom in the Canon lineup. Get that if you can swing the cash. Otherwise, the nonIS version is great (and the IS is not needed for fast action). I hear the f/4 versions are great, but I know that I see the pros shooting the big boy f/2.8 at sporting events.<br>

For weddings, I thought that still the 24-70mm f/2.8L "brick" was the weapon of choice. Sharp, with beautiful color and contrast - a great portrait lens.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >Brian,</p>

<p >I just purchased the T1i with the 70-200mm f/2.8 (without IS). In switching from {in a whisper} Nikon to Canon, I put the money in the glass. The vast majority of my photography is my kids sports (mostly soccer). With the price of the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS comparable to the 70-200mm f/2.8 (without IS), I was torn between them. Even after taking home the f/2.8 I was still undecided. Well after a month of shooting (about 10 soccer games, some night practices under the lights, and random shots indoors) I have not doubt the f/2.8 is for me. </p>

<p >This is the way I see it (for real world use): For sports photography IS is mostly useless. If you are attempting to capture still images of the action, your shutter speed will be critical. To capture still images (without blur) you do not gain from IS. If you want to track players and get background blur, then you need longer shutter speed, so IS would be useful. For my kids soccer, I do not know a practical way to track a player (with random movement) to get a focused player and background movement blur (not bokeh). The f/2.8 produces excellent bokeh.</p>

<p >So, to stop the action in sports, you need the 2.8. If you hope to get pictures inside you still get an advantage with the 2.8.</p>

<p >Here are some soccer pictures. Some are cropped and all are resized to post to Flickr.</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/y-sport/sets/72157622607426484/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/y-sport/sets/72157622607426484/</a></p>

<p >Good luck,</p>

<p > TSL230</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

Age -old answers also available if you search the forums ;-)

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the responses. I ended up going with the 2.8 IS, and the conclusion is this: I won't regret it. I know now that had I gone with the f/4 I would likely have regretted it down the road. Not this lens. Its phenomenal. Here's a pic I took with it over the weekend. Thanks again for all the responses.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the responses. I ended up going with the 2.8 IS, and the conclusion is this: I won't regret it. I know now that had I gone with the f/4 I would likely have regretted it down the road. Not this lens. Its phenomenal. Here's a pic I took with it over the weekend. Thanks again for all the responses.</p>