Does the additional stop of the F/2.8 70-200 compensate for the additional weight?

<p>I regularly use the 70-200 f/4 IS for outdoor sports (football/soccer) and love it for the IS and because it is reasonably light-weight & can be hand-held for most light conditions.</p>

<p>I am considering investing in the f/2.8 IS, as I have some indoor events coming up and will need the 200mm reach but will not be able to use a tripod or possibly a flash.</p>

<p>However, I am wondering if the additional bulk of the f/2.8 will make it more difficult to hold steady & I will end up having to use a high shutter-speed, even with the wider aperture? If so, I might as well stick to the f/4.</p>

<p>Thoughts? Experiences?</p>

<p>If weight is an issue, why not use a monopod?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The short answer is that the additional weight <em>may</em> make it harder to hold steady. For me, it seems, the heavier lenses make my handheld shooting more stable (has more inertia), but many people often complain about the impact heavy lenses have. How much will it impact you? impossible to say... hang about a pound of gear from the end of your 70-200/4 and you may figure it out for yourself.</p>

<p>To be honest though, I'd stick w/ the f4 IS. The extra stop of light isn't going to make that big a difference. You are clearly comfortable using it, and can manage to hold it steady currently, so risking a poor outcome probably isn't worth the improved IQ.</p>

<p>I actually went from the f/2.8 version to the f/4. At the time I bought the f/2.8 I needed the extra speed. As my needs changed I discovered I was almost always shooting at f/5.6 or slower.<br>

I really appreciate the reduced weight and bulk. But as the Brits say,"Horses for courses."<br>

JD</p>

<p>This is a personal decision. For me, the 70-200/2.8 is no problem to handhold, but I work with larger lenses regularly and that practice probably does help matters. For you, the situation might be different, but I don't really think so as the 70-200/2.8 simply isn't so heavy that it cannot be easily mastered.</p>

<p>So I'll disagree with Marcus. The extra stop can be incredibly useful depending on what you are photographing so the 70-200/2.8 is likely a worthwhile acquisition. </p>

<p>However, you might want to rent one before taking the plunge, or at least buy one from a retailer with a good return policy. That and make sure that work with the lens prior to your events so there are no nasty surprises. </p>

<p>I'd agree: rent! You'll never know how it lines up <em>for you</em> until you give it a go. Personally, I find being able to double the shutter speed to be incredibly helpful for action stuff.</p>

<p>Don't know if it is applicable to your situation, but some of us prefer to combine smaller/lighter zooms like the f/4 70-200 model with a few even larger aperture primes.</p>

<p>For indoors with no flash, the f/2.8 is almost a must. For everything else, the f/4 is great.</p>

<p>As an alternative: the Canon 200mm f/2.8 prime can be had for significantly less and, while it does lack IS (which may or may not be applicable here, depending on subject movement), it's light and small (no heavier than the 70-200 f/4 IS).</p>

<p>you will never whine about the weight as you're looking through the gorgeous shots the 2.8 affords you. I owned the 4.0, sold it for the 2.8 and i'll never go back.</p>

<p>marcus, on the contrary, the additional weight actually stabilizes the camera/lens by virtue of it's weight.....that's my theory, and as a mechanical engineer, i could show the math...lol </p>

 

I own the 70-200 F4IS and the70-200 F2.8 non IS. There is no question that the F4 lens is easier to manage and hand

hold. On a 1 series body the f2.8 lens and body weigh about 6lbs compared to about 4 lbs for the F4 lens. There are

really only two benefits to the F2.8 lens. They are shallow DOF and faster shutter speeds. If you do not need these the F4

IS will meet your needs. I find that I use my F4IS on about 80% of occasions (I rarely shoot portraits with a zoom) due to

its size and weight benefits. My F2.8 lens is almost exclusively used for indoor sports where I need the faster shutter

speeds. I have never jumped to IS as for ice hockey (and ski racing - an outdoor sport where I use the F2.8 lens) there is

very little benefit to IS as the sped of the participants is such that you need fast shutter speeds. Put simply if you need

F2.8 then get an F2.8 lens. If not then the F4 is a great lens. In terms of IQ you cannot tell my two lenses apart in real

world shots. Even shooting test charts there is little to choose. In terms of IQ the F2.8 non IS is better than the F2.8 Mk I

IS and slightly worse than the MK II IS.

<p>I have the f4. I sometimes need the 2.8 for indoor shoots, I rent it. The difference in purchasing the lenses is close to $1K, I rent for $25 about three times a year. It will take a long time to make up the difference, and I get the new versions for the same $25.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>the gorgeous shots the 2.8 affords you. I owned the 4.0, sold it for the 2.8 and i'll never go back.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>I always have to ask when I see statements like this - can you please post some shots that show the difference. Otherwise, it's just words in the wind...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the f4IS and use a 135/2 and 200/2.8 when I need faster, which is rarely. The optical quality f4 vs f2.8 is the same to all intents and purposes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd agree: rent! You'll never know how it lines up <em>for you</em> until you give it a go. Personally, I find being able to double the shutter speed to be incredibly helpful for action stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

This is very nice topic that earlier I was thinking of, with the f2.8 and f4 are only one stop which can be compensated

by the iso or other setting, however sometimes you are at full setting then you need that 2.8 and you don't have it.

I do agree you can rent it and test for your requirement.

<p>Weight brings with it a couple of things-- the obvious one which is it is heavier, but the extra weight also add inertial resistance to motion (basically it is harder to get something into motion that is heavier). This inertial resistance may actually make your shots a bit more stable.<br>

I agree with other people---rent one for a few days and see how you feel about it. This approach is one of my tried and true decision making tools. Good luck</p>

<p>Great feedback guys. Really appreciate it. I'll try & find some place to rent (maybe a challenge in Bangkok) & test it out.</p>

<p>I have had the EF 70-200 2.8L since 1997. It weighs three pounds. I have done hundreds of high school sporting events including football games at night on fields with dimly lit end zones. I used a monopod a lot mounted directly to the lens without an intervening ball head because my arms got weary and because I could better steady the lens. Also I could pick it up and run like hell when that fullback was thundering directly toward me on the sidelines while I tried to get that last picture before disaster. Speaking of dimly lit end zones many times that extra f stop meant a lot. Some of my most effective pictures came from the back of a dark end zone. I always kept a flash mounted in case 2.8 was not enough. I still shoot large swimming events with that same lens. The 70-200 2.8 has had two hard drops on concrete and has survived both of them. It is the best photography investment that I have made by far in terms of annual cost. I have done weddings with it, used it in the studio for portraits, done head shots of politicians with it and it still works like it was new now some fourteen or more years later. Sometimes I have longed for the f4 because of weight, however. This lens still produces decent pictures and I will keep it. It will probably outlive me. However, I have just invested in a NEX 5N to complement my Canons because, like my arms used get with 70-200, I am weary of carrying all that heavy stuff around all the time. I will this weekend shoot a swim meet and the old 70-200 will be there along with the new NEX.</p>

<p>BTW. The zoom for sports is indispensable in my mind because that fullback on the sidelines could get quite close and there is no time to change lenses. </p>

<p>For day games, no. Night games - likely yes. </p>

<p>jeff, check out my post on a similar subject in the same forum thread=My 7D and the dreaded basketball shoot.</p>

<p>i've been there, the 2.8 does everything the 4.0 did, you lose a bit of sharpness, but once again i'll say, when you get pictures that you otherwise wouldn't get, there is no room to argue the weight. If money were no object, or i had a bigger bag, i'd have the 4.0 and 2.8.<br>

can't go wrong buying L glass, renting is a terrific option, i've done that too. I had the 2.8L IS first gen for nearly three years, purchased $1569 from adorama, no tax no shipping....sold it last january for $1400 cash, and sprang for the II version. slight improvement, still worth every penny.</p>

<p>steve "inertial resistance to motion" EXACTLY. heavy camera, heavy lens, hard to shake.</p>

<p>One effective less expensive lens that I have had is as way to supplement your current lens(a la G Dan) is with a four hundred dollar Canon 85 1.8 lens. It is a great buy quality and price wise. Fast focus. </p>

<p>Are you having trouble with subject blur and noise with your f/4 with your current body? If so, and assuming that you're using a reasonably high ISO for the circumstances, then you either need an f/2.8 or a body that shoots at higher ISO with less noise than your current body. If not, why are you asking the question?</p>

<p>I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS for nature and birds in flight, with and without a 1.4X TC attached. Usually it's on my 5D MkII body or my 7D, typically shooting at ISO 800 and sometimes above. I have no problems with noise or getting the shutter speed high enough to prevent subject blur. If I shot basketball or weddings, that might be another story.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Weight brings with it a couple of things-- the obvious one which is it is heavier, but the extra weight also add inertial resistance to motion (basically it is harder to get something into motion that is heavier). This inertial resistance may actually make your shots a bit more stable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can work with lighter lenses as well. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809532/0#7482263">Here </a>are two 2-seconds! handheld shots with 7D and 17-55/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>