A Faster Lens - Trying to Justify the Cost

<p>I'm going to break down and buy a used Canon 7-200mm Type L lens from KEH.com. I'm trying to justify paying twice as much for an F2.8 rather than an F4.<br>

<br />Sure, faster lenses are better, but I hardly, if ever, shoot in low light any more, especially where I'd need such a long lens. The 2.8 lens would be easier to see through the viewfinder, obviously, but besides that, what other advantages are there to a faster lens? Both are Type L (red stripe) lenses, too.<br /><br /><br>

This is not the IS version, so at 200mm you'd need 1/250th to steady that lens (or shoot on a tripod.)<br>

I can't imaging taking a $1000.00 F2.8 lens out in the fields somewhere, and dropping it or dunking it - what a loss.<br>

<br />Does anyone use an F4 zoom lens? How do you like it, for general daylight use? Do you wish you had the F2.8?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Advantages, as I see them: Brighter image in viewfinder, an extra stop to catch action, perhaps enhanced optical design, bragging rights.<br>

Disadvantages: weight, size, cost.</p>

FWIW, I have the 700 2.8 non IS. It is an excellent lens as are all Canon's 70-200. The sharpness of your photos will be dictated by your ability to get the most out of the lens. I've taken thousands of photos with it, anything from runner photos to bird photography. That said, as much as I love the lens, I would now choose the f4 IS lens...lighter, and easier to carry.

 

It sounds like you will use it hand-held, and possibly carry it over your shoulder. That would be a mistake. A shutter speed of 1/250 hand-held might get you sharp photos, but I doubt not the potential of using a tripod or IS. I transport the lens in a backpack, so I am not too worried about dropping it or dunking it. In addition, by hand-holding, you may or may not get the correct focus if your focus point moves off target. In my opinion, the lens is too heavy to carry over a shoulder. The f4 IS would be much better suited for using it hand-held.

<p>I had two xx-200/2.8 lenses before switching to the Canon EF 70-200/4 L. I chose this focal length for the ability to handhold for daytime sporting events and after a couple of years realized that the f2.8 versions are just too big and heavy. Of course from time to time I think it would be neat to have f2.8 again but then I remember trying to pan racing cars or kayaks and the thought is squashed.</p>

<p>The original 70-200/4 is said to provide better image quality than the f2.8 versions except the IS II. </p>

<p>For much less than the price of the IS II I was able to get the 70-200/4 L and original 300/4 L which make a superb pair of lenses for handholding.</p>

<p>I don't need IS since I use these lenses primarily for daylight sports at high shutter speeds or panning at mid shutter speeds. I even had a super sharp 200/2 for a few years and that was stupid heavy.</p>

<p>Tom, insurance is your friend :>). The F4 zoom is really good, but if you are after nicer bokeh...then go for the F2.8. The faster lens is only smidgen better. If you'll use a tripod then the F4 would be sufficient.</p>

<p>Disagree, both lenses can be viewed through the finder equally.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone, for your quick and honest comments.<br>

<br />Yes, insurance is nice, but I think I'll go with this F4 lens:</p>

<p>https://www.keh.com/212507/canon-70-200mm-f-4-l-usm-ef-mount-lens-67</p>

<p>I don't imagine ever shooting wide open, more like one stop down to F5.6 or more. As far as viewfinder brightness, why wouldn't an F2.8 appear brighter than an F4?<br /><br />John, is this the lens you were referring to as having better image quality than an F2.8?</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Tom - Depending on the focusing screen in your viewfinder, some are optimized for different apertures and focal lengths. So, even though you are viewing wide open in both cases, some screens will appear brighter with a f2/8 lens than a f/4 lens - some people can discern the one stop difference, some can't.</p>

<p>Thanks, Stephen. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't imagine ever shooting wide open</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I found with the 70-200 f4 L that shooting at full aperture was fine compared to a stop down. In many marginal conditions where I needed an extra stop other factors such as shutter speed or ISO seemed to make more difference.</p>

<p>Not only is a viewfinder brighter in most cases (most modern DSLRs have a viewfinder optimised for f/2.8), also AF action tends to be faster as the AF module gets more light too. The difference with a F/4 lens in bright daylight will be quite marginal, but as light levels go down, the difference becomes increasingly obvious. The advantages are real, and for many pros the reasons to get the f/2.8 lenses.<br>

Now, given that you're not thinking about shooting at f/2.8, nor in low light, it all becomes pretty much a no-brainer: save the money for something more useful and get a f/4 lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imaging taking a $1000.00 F2.8 lens out in the fields somewhere,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, not even insurance. It's something you get over; these lenses are made to deal with heavy use, they do not need to be pampered. The first times I went out with my 80-200 f/2.8 ($1200 lens at that time), I also was scared that something might happen, but after a few times, you just use it. Lenses are tools meant to be used, even when some cost a bit more.</p>

<p>[[it's something you get over; these lenses are made to deal with heavy use, they do not need to be pampered]]<br>

<br />This. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, faster lenses are better, but I hardly, if ever, shoot in low light any more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you have answered your question. You don't need it. Get the f4 IS version and you will be better off, optically and weight wise and with the IS you will be ahead in practical use for still subjects in light gathering. Faster lenses are not "better". I think no one seriously suggests that the f2.8s are significantly optically superior to the f4 variants.</p>

<p>There are legions of people who buy the f2.8 lens because it gives them bragging rights, only to find it frequently too big and heavy and hence leave it at home. The f4s are wonderfully light. If you really need the f2.8 you will know it.</p>

<p>I agree with Robin. The f/4 lenses are far more comfortable to carry and hold. Before release of the /2.8 IS II, I had a choice between the /4 IS and the /2.8 non-IS at approximately the same cost. The choice of the /4 IS was obvious to me (for my purposes), because I was not seeking heavily blurred, creamy backgrounds from the lens, and the IS is so useful! In fact I'd go one step further and tell you not to bother with the extra cost of a non-IS L lens if you're gong to hand-hold it. Instead, get a 70-300 IS (non-L), which is a remarkably good lens for what it costs. Of course if you're going to use a tripod, the IS doesn't matter. But if you're going to hand-hold, only the IS version or a really high shutter speed is going to capture that extra image detail that the /4 L lens is going to give you. Furthermore, on those rare occasions you might shoot in low light, the IS will give you several stops shooting advantage (for stationary subjects, at least), vs. just a single stop shooting advantage with a /2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Here's another thought: If you want a heavily blurred background for occasional shots, consider also picking up a fast prime, such as the 85/1.8 or 100/2, which are even faster than the /2.8 zooms and also quite inexpensive. You can pick up one of these lenses for a fraction of the differential between the /4 and /2.8 zooms, and then you can have the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone. I'm reading all these comments carefully and I appreciate each one.</p>

<p>But, at this point, why even bother with an F4 IS version? It nearly doubles the price.<br>

<br />Shoot at (least at) 1/250th or shoot on a tripod/monopod. <br>

<br />I shoot a fair amount of video on my 5D MKII these days, so zoomed in to 200mm would require a tripod, to say the least.<br>

<br />Image Stabilization is a nice feature, but is it absolutely necessary? I don't see myself shooting gun 'n run or sports in the future. </p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>You don't need IS for sports - that is probably why one would pick an f2.8 lens, but IS is useful for most everything else. You can shoot at 1/60th at f4 with IS at 200mm and get sharp images, whereas 1/125 at f2.8 will not be sharp. So it's very useful. If you cannot stretch to a new f4 IS then try to get a secondhand one. The non-IS f2.8 and the f4 IS used to be about the same price...I haven't checked recently.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, faster lenses are better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How did you jump to that conclusion? The 4 version is sharper, I believe. It's also about half the (not insignificant) weight, and more compact.</p>

<p>When I bought (first gen) 70-200 f2.8, the f4.0 version was not available with Image Stabilization, something I really wanted. Right now, I'd be very interesting in the f4.0 with IS.</p>

<p>The 1/fl rule of thumb is only a rule of thumb, and it achieves "acceptable" sharpness by most people's standards, with respect to most people's shooting skills. But are you paying all this money for acceptable sharpness? You can get that from a much less expensive consumer lens. If you're willing to shoot at maybe 1/2000 and faster (handheld, of course), then the L 70-200 lenses might start to outshine the 70-300 IS non-L.</p>

<p>Is the IS necessary? It depends on what/how you shoot. If you're willing to commit to a tripod, then it's not necessary at all. If you're shooting sports, it is similarly useless (i.e. does not stabilize moving SUBJECTS). But if you're hand-holding (even using a monopod) and shooting stationary (or slow moving) subjects, then it can be enormously useful. There are many of us (including me) who will not buy a telephoto lens without the IS. In fact I'm one of the few people who loves IS even at shorter focal lengths. For instance, here is a photo I took at 42mm with a cheap consumer lens, hand-holding for an entire second, just to see if I could pull it off (which I did):</p>

<p>http://graphic-fusion.com/phcolemanbridge01.htm</p>

<p>But please understand what I'm trying to say. It's simply this: Top-flight gear only yields an advantage with compulsive technique, and I don't know what level of technique you employ or are willing to commit to. There are many who would disagree with me, but I feel the prudent and skillful use of IS gives you most of the benefit of a tripod without any of the costs (weight, set-up time, lack of shooting freedom/spontaneity). So for me, IS is extremely important and worth twice the cost. For you, it might not be, especially if you are a tripod shooter. But if you want to shoot handheld at 1/250 or so, I honestly think the cheaper 70-300 IS non-L is going to give you better results than any of the non-IS 70-200 L family, at least f/4 or f/5.6 and above. And then the 70-200/4 IS L will be another step up from that lens.</p>

<p>And of course there are other reasons to own an L: It's a beautiful lens and a pleasure to use. It's weather sealed (most of them, anyway). Corner sharpness is generally better. CA is generally better controlled. Build quality. Pride of ownership.</p>

<p>EDIT: It's been a while since I've looked at prices. Wow, the consumer 70-300 IS is more expensive than when I bought it -- almost as much as the 70-200/4 non-IS L. However, for my shooting purposes, I'd still rather have the 70-300 IS non-L than the 70-200/4 non-IS L, even at the same price. Of course I don't actually own the 70-200/4 non-IS. I own the IS version. But if the IS in my 70-200/4 IS were broken, I'd honestly rather carry around my 70-300 IS non-L. (Note: The 70-200/4 IS L is optically a bit better than the non-IS version.)</p>

<p>SECOND EDIT: Apparently you can still buy the 70-300 IS non-L off of Ebay for around $400, which is about what I paid for mine.</p>

<p>One thing to consider is that the AF sensors in many bodies operate differently with f/2.8 (and larger) lenses.<br>

This can be an advantage shooting rapidly moving subjects with AF-servo.<br>

I have the f/2.8 version for that reason.<br>

FWIW, most of the people who've asked me for recommendations on 70-200mm lenses have ended up with the lighter/sharper/cheaper f/4 version since that was the better fit to their needs (esp. the cheaper...).</p>

<p>I've owned both. I can't say I noticed any difference in the results. The reason I got the f2.8 is that a friend sold one that was little-used for the same price I could sell the f4 and it meant I didn't have to carry primes for concert shooting. I would much prefer the lighter weight of the f4. If I wasn't shooting in the dark most of the time, there's no way I would keep the f2.8.</p>

<p>I shoot Motorsports with a 70-200 f/4L. IMHO it's the best bargain in the Canon lineup. I shoot in shutter priority usually between 1/125 and 1/500 panning my subjects. The lens is light and focuses fast. The weight does make a difference if you are moving around a lot. At road race events at Laguna Seca or Sears Point I walk 5 to 10+ miles a day. By the end of a multi-day event the weight of your gear matters. </p>

<p>Yes the f4 L lens you are considering is very highly rated with respect to image quality. Likely the only f2.8 lens that would be noticeably sharper is the f2.8 L IS II. </p>

<p>One stop difference of light in the viewfinder is not a big deal. Most lenses that I use are f2.8 to f5.6 and I really don't notice any real difference in the viewfinder until I switch to the f1.2 to f1.4 lenses. What I do miss is the super bright viewfinders of 35mm manual focus film bodies...but that is a time long gone by.</p>

<p>I am not a fan of IS but I just don't shoot in situations where it would benefit. For the type of photography that I do, I prefer/need a tripod. </p>

<p>On another note I have bought at least three lenses from KEH in ugly to bargain condition and have been very pleased with them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both a 70-200 f/4 L non-IS, and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II. I got the f/4 about 10 years ago to cover running events, and have taken tens of thousands of images with it. I'm very happy with the results. I got the f/2.8 just a few months ago. I've used each on crop sensor and on full frame bodies. I can't discern a difference in viewfinder brightness, at least in actual use (I haven't done any formal experimenting). I can't discern a difference in image quality in any of the shooting I've done with the two lenses. I like the bokeh on each. I don't notice any particular difference in focusing, and, as I said, I've used the f/4 extensively for shooting runners, occasionally in dim light. For really dim light shooting, I really like the f/2.8 IS. It works as advertised. But the lens weighs a ton. I would not want to carry it around very long. If you have no need for IS, I say go for the f/4. (OTOH, if you really want to impress other photographers, go for the f/2.8. I get lots of comments from people when I use it.)</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8L the OP was considering is slightly sharper at f4 than the 70-200/4L IS at f4 - in the lab. on a tripod. reported by a computer. Why do I qualify like that? because that's about what it usually takes to detect any difference in 'sharpness' between the two @f4 - and even that difference is totally swamped by normal sample variation.</p>

<p>That said, the f2.8 does have better bokeh, and it performs vastly better @f2.8-f3.5. It's IS system also totally sucks - it never works right! it's even missing the IS switch! If you are shooting portraiture, weddings, or nightclubs, the f2.8 has a specific advantage. For everything else (including 'GP' use), the f4L IS is the clear winner.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS has been my workhorse outdoor lens for years. When the 70-200/2.8 L IS II came out, I briefly considered getting it, but I just couldn't justify the added cost, weight, and bulk of it over the f/4 zoom, all for a mere extra stop.</p>

<p>As for the IS feature, I'll echo Robin's advice that it's invaluable for all but fast moving subjects, where high shutter speeds are needed. Nowadays, I wouldn't consider buying a longer lens without IS. Being able to shoot handheld in most lighting conditions is more than worth the additional cost to me.</p>

<p>I personally have the f/4 non-IS version. There have been occasions where the IS would have come in handy, but for the majority of my uses, I get by just fine without it. The f/2.8 is way too expensive for my needs, and way too heavy for regular carry, IMHO.</p>