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

<blockquote>

<p>Chip DeGrace , Feb 01, 2012; 07:09 p.m. 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>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the idea, but it doesn't always work that way. A heavier lens provides more resistance to motion, but also can make you more tired. With tired wrists your lens is still less resistant to motion, but YOU are more resistant to motion. Plus using that lens on a Rebel gives you poor balance, which also makes you less resistant to motion.</p>

<p>I seem to recall the design of the earlier Mk I f/2.8 being nearly identical to the f/4, with the main difference in the Mk II being improved coatings. Theoretically, if set to f/5.6 or below (in other words, not using just one of the lenses wide open) the Mk I f/2.8 should give you the same pictures as the f/4. The Mk II is supposed to be an improvement, but if you bought the lens used it would probably be a Mk I, and you probably wouldn't see much improvement other than light transmission.</p>

<p>If one were to simply lay out the pros of the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS over the 70-200 f/4L IS, it might look something like this:</p>

<p><strong>70-200 f/2.8L II Pros:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Shallower DOF. At f/4.5, has same DOF as f/4L IS at f/4, not to mention the availability of f/2.8!</li>

<li>Extra stop of light</li>

<li>Sharper (slightly)</li>

<li>Activates high-precision AF sensors</li>

<li>Extra stop of light also aids AF</li>

<li>f/5.6 w/ 2x teleconverter, preserving AF</li>

<li>Quiet IS</li>

<li>77mm filter ring</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>70-200 f/4L IS Pros:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Lighter</li>

<li>Cheaper</li>

</ol>

<p>The newer, more expensive lens has many more pros than the other. But the pros are not of equal weight, pun intended, depending on your purpose. Honestly, I've been having this same raging debate in my mind for a while now.</p>

<p>Let's see why...</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 II is so <strong>sharp</strong> it's unbelievable. At f/2.8 it's as sharp as my 70-200 f/4L IS at f/4 (a significant improvement over the 2.8 I). At f/4, the 70-200/2.8 II is <strong>sharper</strong> than my 70-200/4 at f/4, with <strong>less vignetting</strong> of course. Also, the IS makes absolutely <strong>no noise</strong>, which is not true for the f/4.</p>

<p>Additionally, the 70-200/2.8 will activate the <strong>higher precision sensors</strong>. And with more available light reaching the AF sensors, might <strong>focus more accurately in the dark</strong>. I've sometimes been surprised at finding my 5DMkII+70-200/f4 hunting for focus after twilight, but this is understandable with low contrast objects in low-light environments. The 1-series bodies are supposed to be better at this (lower EV rating for AF).</p>

<p>Interestingly, I also noted that when taking a photo of the same object, at roughly the same subject magnification, at 200mm focal length without changing camera-to-subject distance, the 70-200/2.8 II at f/4.5 had roughly the same depth-of-field (DOF) as the 70-200/4 at f/4 (as judged by size of out-of-focus (OOF) highlights in the background). In other words, OOF highlights were rendered roughly the same size at f/4.5 on the f/2.8 lens as at f/4 on the f/4 lens. And OOF highlights at f/4 on the f/2.8 lens were rendered significantly larger than those same OOF highlights at f/4 on the f/4 lens. Granted, this is certainly not a rigorous method; I will shortly quantitate the DOF through image analysis of a target with alternating black & white lines along the depth axis. This observation could be due to a physically larger aperture at f/4 on the f/2.8 lens in comparison to f/4 on the f/4 lens, though this is just a guess. Hopefully I will soon get around to posting a blog article showing my aforementioned results.</p>

<p>All that being said, I just couldn't get used to the <strong>weight</strong> of the f/2.8 II. It's twice the weight of the f/4, worsened by the fact that since the lenses protrude away from you a significant length, it's not like it's just an <strong>extra 1.6lbs</strong> on top of your camera body. So the <strong>torque</strong> applied by all that weight held out on a radial arm that you must oppose to hold the camera upright is, well, significant.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the 1.6lbs savings in weight is great for <strong>hiking</strong>. The AF limitation when shooting in the dark, or especially when shooting w/ a 2x teleconverter, is addressable by Live AF for landscape shooting. Not so much, of course, for other types of photography, so judge accordingly.</p>

<p>I further justify sticking with the f/4 because, for portraits, weddings, engagements, etc., I prefer to shoot with <strong>primes</strong>. Primarily 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2. Therefore I don't use the 70-200 much indoors. When I'm outdoors, I'll use the 70-200 when I want to <strong>compress near & distant objects</strong>. Under these conditions, with the subject(s) near to me & the distant object far, at 200mm focal length, <strong>even at f/4 the distant objects are already rendered well out-of-focus</strong>. Sure, 2.8 makes the OOF areas even more 'buttery', but when distant objects are already well out-of-focus, the advantage is often very subtle.</p>

<p>Now, those are my justifications for my contrived scenarios, albeit scenarios that I mostly find myself in. Your scenarios may be different, so you'll have to judge accordingly. For example, <strong>if I really expected to find myself shooting more sports or indoors w/ the 70-200 focal length, that'd tip the balance in favor of the 2.8 II</strong>. But as it is, indoors I rarely find myself wanting much more than 85mm (where I move around more to effectively 'zoom'), and outdoors when I want the long focal length usually there's still enough available light to focus properly (remember f/4 has a more forgiving DOF for AF errors) even if there isn't enough light for a great exposure (in which case I'll use off-camera flash, higher ISO, or sacrifice the long focal length & switch to the 85/1.2).</p>

<p>Oh... optimization problems :) If I had enough money, of course, I'd own both the f/2.8 II & the f/4 IS!</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

<p>lens rentals is selling a used 70-200 f2.8L IS II for $1790, free shipping.....</p>

<p>zack, i agree about the tired wrists, and the balance. used the mk I 70-2002.8 on my rebel, awkward...worked nice on the 40d, and terrific on the 7d with battery grip. love the heft, set it down frequently to "rest"</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZxS8"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2381463">Rishi Sanyal</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 02, 2012; 07:51 p.m.</p>

 

<p >If one were to simply lay out the pros of the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS over the 70-200 f/4L IS, it might look something like this:</p>

 

<p ><strong>70-200 f/2.8L II Pros:</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote><ol>

<li>Shallower DOF. At f/4.5, has same DOF as f/4L IS at f/4, not to mention the availability of f/2.8!</li>

</ol></blockquote>

 

<p>I'm confused. I'm pretty sure every lens at a given focal length and aperture, and with the same subject-to-camera distance, has the same DOF. Are you confusing a longer focus throw with less DOF?</p>

<blockquote><ol>

<li>Activates high-precision AF sensors</li>

<li>Extra stop of light also aids AF</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>First off, that's the same thing twice. I know it's a big one, but it's still the same thing twice. Second, I may need to have this explained to me again, because obviously I don't understand how AF sensors work. I was under the impression that a cross-type sensor requires a maximum aperture of 2.8 to function as a cross-type - NOT that it requires that to work. If my understanding is correct, that means that the f/2.8 lens may focus better if you have selected a cross-type focusing point, but will focus exactly the same if you are focusing on a non-cross point.</p>

<ol> </ol>

<p>The "extra weight is a Good Thing!" argument smells a bit like self-justification. ;-)</p>

<p>If it were true, wouldn't we all be adding weight to our lenses to that we would get sharper pictures. Hey, you you could do that with the f/4 on those occasions when you want it. And, double-hey, I think I need to offer a new product: Super Lens Stability Weights. If I make it really expensive, lots of gear heads will buy it... ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>lens rentals is selling a used 70-200 f2.8L IS II for $1790</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can rent it 72 times at that price. </p>

<p>Zack:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm confused. I'm pretty sure every lens at a given focal length and aperture, and with the same subject-to-camera distance, has the same DOF. Are you confusing a longer focus throw with less DOF?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ideally, this would be true. In reality, it's not. You may be surprised at variabilities that often go unnoticed... for example, 85mm focal length on one lens may not be exactly 85mm on another lens (even at the same focus distance setting). In this case, it's my guess that actual aperture size opening is overestimated in one lens vs. the other.</p>

<p>Clear documentation of varying DOF for the same focal length/aperture/distance combination across two different lenses (in this case, the Sigma 85/1.4 & the Canon 85/1.2) is shown in the DOF comparison on <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">this page</a>. Scroll down to the aperture comparison. </p>

<p>I've done similar tests & reproduced their findings. Essentially the Sigma 85/1.4 at f/1.4 has the same DOF as the Canon 85/1.2 at f/1.6... meaning that it's likely that the Sigma is overestimating their actual aperture opening at any given f-stop or Canon is underestimating their actual aperture opening at any given f-stop. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Sigma lens consistently underexposes your image by ~1/3 stop even for the same shutter speed/aperture combination as that used on the Canon lens. <em>Note this is only my hypothesis as I have not physically measured the aperture opening in either of the lenses at a given f-stop, something that'd require physically taking apart the lens.</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was under the impression that a cross-type sensor requires a maximum aperture of 2.8 to function as a cross-type - NOT that it requires that to work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>High-precision sensors are a different issue altogether from cross-type sensors (yes, you're right, certain sensors add an additional axis of sensitivity at larger apertures, functioning only as horizontal OR vertical line sensors above this critical aperture). High-precision AF sensors have a wider triangulation baseline and can offer AF accuracy within ~1/3 of the DOF of a given lens/aperture. Because of the wider triangulation baseline, these higher-precision sensors *only* function at f/2.8 or larger apertures because they <strong>require</strong> a wider cone of light so that the appropriate light rays make it thru the prisms onto the pixel-array AF sensors.. See Canon's explanation <a href="http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_precision_crosstype_article.shtml">here</a>.</p>

<p>Additionally, to understand the concept of a wider triangulation baseline as it applies to a phase-detection AF system (and why it requires a larger aperture to even function at all), read this excellent technical paper by Douglas Kerr, <a href="http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_precision_crosstype_article.shtml">here</a>.</p>

<p>Hope that clarifies things.<br>

-Rishi</p>

<p>Essentially, to the OP:</p>

<p>In my opinion, the <em>price</em> of the f/2.8 II is completely justified. For ~$1k more, you're getting a heck of a lot of goodies. If price alone were the consideration, I'd spring for the f/2.8 II & never look back. I personally wouldn't consider the f/2.8 I in light of the f/2.8 II, which is so much sharper than version I, and has lower chromatic aberration than even the excellent f/4 IS lens.</p>

<p>The <em>weight</em> is what kills it for me. But YMMV, b/c I have a left arm weakened from surgery.</p>

<p>To put things in perspective, I'm totally happy carrying around a 24-70/2.8L all day on my 5DMk II. At 2.1lbs, it's not trivial, but I don't mind it at all. 3.2lbs, though, with the length of the thing adding to the torque, is too much for me for anything but limited use.</p>

<p>On the other hand, build up your forearms and you'll be fine :) <br /> -Rishi</p>

<p>Also, Zack, the critical aperture for cross-type AF (not high-precision AF) is <strong>f/5.6</strong> for the center AF point on the <strong>5D Mark II</strong>, & <strong>f/4 or f/5.6</strong> for most of the cross-type sensors on the upcoming <strong>1Dx</strong>. So cross-type AF is not the issue here when comparing the f/2.8 & f/4 versions of the 70-200. It's the activation of <em>high-precision sensors</em> that is the issue at hand. These sensors almost always require f/2.8 or larger <strong>to function at all</strong>.</p>

<p>For me, weight is an ambivalent issue. I hate carrying heavy gear but when I'm actually shooting, I prefer having a heavier gear over lighter one. It just feel better. This is why, when I recently traveled to India (2 months) I took my 7D + 3 lenses + flash. I had a small P&S as a backup but never touched it. If I'd go today to the same trip I'd take exactly the same setup.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>As I said earlier - owning both the F2.8 and F4 lenses I find that weight is a big negative for the F2.8 lens. As Dan says if weight was such a good thing we would be using brass lenses like my Leicas for our 400 F2.8s not Magnesium ones!. The argument that it makes the camera more stable is not something I have found. If the 70-200 F4 IS plus a 7D body was lightweight like a Compact camera then this may be true. However, even this lightweight combination weights 1.57 Kg which is more than enough to be held stable. Moving to the F2.8 IS II adds another 50% to this weight. As I said earlier the real world differences in IQ are very small so unless you want to pixel peep I would not buy the F2.8 II for IQ improvements. If you need F2.8 for low light or shallower DOF then get it - otherwise stay with the F4. In terms of AF performance the F2.8 does have better AF performance in theory and I can convince myself that it does in practice. However, again the differences are small and you will see a bigger improvement going from the 7D to a 1 series body than from the F4 to the F2.8</p>

<p>The weight argument in favor of the f2.8 is spurious. No one would call the f4 a light lens - a 24/2.8 or 35/2 is light - nor is it hard to hold still. It is arguably better balanced on a 5D than the larger lens. The most important thing to get sharp shots is using a sufficiently high shutter speed and the presence of absence of IS. That's it, and that is independent of the mass of the lens. Arguing that the extra weight of the 70-200mm f2.8 is somehow intrinsically useful makes no sense. Also I have seen no data that suggests that the f2.8 focuses faster or more accurately than the f4. This is an assumption that I don't think has any evidence to back it up.</p>

<p>Despite the long response above, in the real world, the following assumption is essentially correct:</p>

<p><em>"I'm pretty sure every lens at a given focal length and aperture, and with the same subject-to-camera distance, has the same DOF. Are you confusing a longer focus throw with less DOF?"</em></p>

<p>Yes, some lenses can be measured to provide the equivalent of slightly different FL than they claim, etc. But these things are truly trivial, and whatever effect you imagine there could be on DOF is so trivial as to be completely invisible. So, it is correct to assume that there is no meaningful (and typically just plain no) difference in DOF among lenses of the same focal length at the same aperture.</p>

<p>There are sometime visible differences between the performance of various lenses if you peer intently at side-by-side examples at 100% magnification on your screen and go looking for them in shots that were shot clinically to best reveal them. However, in the real world (yeah, that place again...) the differences that people often obsess over here in photography forums on completely insignificant in a number of ways and often distract people from real differences that can be significant.</p>

<p>For one... Yes, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens is, by all reports, a truly wonderful lens. But so is the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I considered purchasing the former recently but decided to stick with the f/4 version when I replaced my older non-IS copy. The resolution of the f/4 lens is truly excellent. I print on an in-house Epson 7900 that has a 24" wide carriage, so I'm familiar with what various lenses can and cannot do at large print sizes. The f/4 70-200 does not limit me in any way regarding resolution when used carefully and skillfully. While it may be true that the f/2.8 lens can test to provide slightly higher resolution in certain conditions, this is about as significant to image quality as finding that one car you are considering for purchase as a commute vehicle has a maximum speed of of 260mph while the other can "only" achieve 259.8mph.</p>

<p>And if your photographic output is most often electronic files or perhaps letter size or even 13 x 19 prints... I can guarantee that you aren't going to see any difference in sharpness among the four (or five, depending on how you count) 70-200mm L lenses.</p>

<p>So who might benefit from the 70-200mm f/2.8? Someone for whom the cost isn't an issue, first of all. Someone who is not concerned about the cumulative weight and bulk of their photographic equipment for another. A person who frequently shoots right at the lower limit of usable light for non-flash photography perhaps. In other words, the main differentiation between the lenses is not image quality - it is related to functional concerns and how they align with your particular photographic needs.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm Nikon rather than Canon but I use a 70-200 2.8 VRII for figure skating, which takes place under dim light with kids moving 40mph-plus. For this situation -- similar to other indoor sports under poor light in places like high school gyms or stadiums -- I simply couldn't shoot with an f/4 lens. At ISO 1600, I'm getting 2.8 at 1/200 with all the lights on for competitions, and as low as 1/125 under theatrical lighting for ice shows. If my camera (Nikon D200) could go to higher ISO without excessive noise, I would use it to jump up my shutter speed, not go to f/4. As for weight, I like it because of the extra stability and use a monopod if needed. As others have mentioned, renting is an option if you don't need 2.8 every day. I own a Tamron 70-200 2.8 but it doesn't autofocus fast enough for skating even though it's the same speed as the Nikon, so I rent the Nikon on skating days. It all depends on what you shoot -- if you're not shooting fast moving subjects in the dark, you can get by fine with the f/4, but I would say there is no doubt that the 2.8 is the better lens. You can never be too rich or too thin, and your lenses can never be too fast.</p>

<p>I think the weight = stability thing is a valid argument, but only if you make an assumption in the middle. A heavier lens is more likely to be mounted on a heavier camera, which means that lens will more likely balance better than a lighter lens. I can only assume that people that say weight adds stability are generally making that assumption, and people that disagree are not making that assumption.</p>

<p>As far as a constant goes, extra lens weight by itself will only help when the camera/lens is lightly supported, such as when using a monopod, or handholding with your elbows propped up. This is because the extra weight creates more downward force, and that reduces side-to-side movement. If you're handholding without a brace, then the extra downward force is more than enough to counteract any inertial resistance from the bigger lens. If you've ever used a rifle sling, you know what I mean. The sling only holds the rifle steady if you're partially supported; if you're standing up or firing from a bench, the sling does nothing.</p>

<p>And Rishi, thanks for the explanations. The DOF one makes perfect sense now, and I feel like an idiot for not already knowing it. I've been doing some video research, and came across the notion of t/stops as a measurement of standard brightness, as oppossed to f/stops, which are only mostly standardized. I have no idea why my brain didn't make the connection between non-standardized f/stops and non-standardized DOF :)</p>

<p>I have no doubt that when I turn off the IS in my 500mm f/4L IS that it is the least stable of my lenses with the IS turned off. It's the heaviest lens I own, by far. Of course, longer focal length magnifies instability.</p>

<p>For two lenses with the same focal length range, then weight may or may not be a factor, depending on the capability of the related IS. Comparing the70-200mm f/4L IS to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the later is going to be more stable with IS on, simply because it has a superior IS design, not because it's heavier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Comparing the70-200mm f/4L IS to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the later is going to be more stable with IS on, simply because it has a superior IS design, not because it's heavier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you have a reference on them updating the IS? It's not that I don't believe you, since clearly something was updated given the fact that it's silent on the f/2.8 II vs. the f/4. Would just like to know how advantageous the new IS is compared to the one on the f/4. </p>

<p>One odd thing I've noticed on my f/4 lens is sometimes when I have the IS on & auto-bracket, the 1st shot has motion blur whereas the 2nd & 3rd do not. The 3rd is usually +2/3 stop so that likely rules out motion-blur due to shutter speed. Usually I wait for the IS to lock on b/c it's erratic at the beginning but it is weird that sometimes that 1st shot is motion-blurred. Anyway, this was w/ my EOS-3 & slide film, so maybe it was something w/ that lens/camera combo. Don't think I've noticed it on my 5DMkII... </p>

<p>Sure Rishi, look here:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f2.8l-is-ii">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f2.8l-is-ii</a> and then look at the f/4 IS review at the same site.</p>

<p>Both lenses are rated to have 4-stop IS... so I still don't see any justification behind the statement that the IS on the f/2.8 II is better than that on the f/4. Though I seem to recall reading it somewhere... I may be mistaken though.</p>

<p>This:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is</a><br>

Says 3-stops for the f/4L IS. I can't see where you see that they both have 4-stop IS.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>"Take one of Canon's most popular lenses, the <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon 70-200mm f/4 L</a>, add an <strong>up-to-4-stop Image Stabilizer</strong> and you get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens."</p>

 

<p>Regarding motion blur on the first image Rishi ... my guess would be that since the EOS-3 is lighter than the 5D, there was proportionally more weight on the lens end than in your hands. When you pressed the shutter button, it caused the camera end to swing (just barely) like a pendulum. With a heavier camera body there was better balance, and less motion. Part of the IS' job on frames two and three was to counteract the force of you pressing the camera in one direction.</p>

<p>Or maybe not :) That's all I can think of.</p>

<p>I have noticed that people are very different when it comes to their tolerance of heavy photo equipment. Even people I know that goes a lot to the gym doesn't like too heavy equipment. Myself, being larger than average but no super athlete, have no problem lugging around a 70-200 2.8L IS all day. My neck might hurt a little, but i most cases I think it is worth it. Other people might think differently.<br>

So asking other people here doesn't make much sense, you really have to hire/borrow the lens (I was so lucky to borow a 70-200 from a friend before going to India)</p>

<p>Mark,<br>

Does the additional stop of the F/2.8 70-200 compensate for the additional weight? In my opinion it's hard to say, since it depends on what you or I consider as heavy. Maybe it might be a good idea to rent the 2.8 if you haven't used it before. Then you can decide whether the extra stop compensates for the weight.<br>

Personally, I love my 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and have no problem holding it steady, but it's you who has to carry it. Perhaps a BlackRapid strap could be useful so you wouldn't have to carry it all the time?<br>

Good luck on the decision, both are great lenses...</p>