70-200 f/2.8L vs 70-200 f/4L: Bokeh and Hand-hold-ability

<p>Another boring equipment question:</p>

<p>I currently own the 70-200 f/4L. While I appreciate the sharpness and focusing speed of this lens, I am quite disappointed with its bokeh. I have been offered an almost new 70-200 f/2.8L (without IS) at a good price. So, I would like to know from the colleagues at photo.net.</p>

<p>Do you think that the bokeh provided by the f/2.8 lens version is better the one provided by the f/4L?</p>

<p>Do you consider the extra weight to be exaggerated? Would you carry it on your backpack on a day long trip?</p>

<p>Would you use the lens with a 2x TC?</p>

<p>Is IS an essential feature for this lens (specially with the TC) or could you live without it? </p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio</p>

 

I am very surprised to hear that you are disappointed with the bokeh of this lens. The f/4 can actually do quite well in

this regard. I wonder if you need a prime?

 

Dan

<p>It might help to clarify what you mean. Are you talking about the <em>amount</em> of background blur (its ability to separate the subject from the background when used wide open), or the visual <em>quality</em> of the background blur (which is what most people are referring to when they talk about "bokeh")? The first is going to be essentially the same for every lens of the same focal length at f/4. The second is definitely going to be different from one lens design to the next. </p>

I have the F4 IS and the F2.8 non IS. Of the two the image quality is almost identical and Bokah very similar. The f2.8

lens is a better portrait lens due to it's shallower DOF. However, the difference is not that great. If you do not shoot

sports I find the F4 IS to be the more versatile lens as it is much lighter and more compact. I personally bought the

F2.8 non IS over the MkI IS lens as I found it sharper wide open (the Digital Picture tests show similar results). In

terms of action sports and low light the F2.8 lens is much better than the f4 and in my case the lack of IS is not a big

issue as I need to stop action. While I have the MkII 2x TC I do not like it much on either lens (you need a 1series

body for AF with the 2x and F4 lens). The 1.4x works great on both lenses

<p>you first have to know how to manipulate your camera to subject and subject to background distances to maximize the bokeh. Great bokeh can be achieved with the f/4 if you know what you're doing, and if you don't, the 2.8 may not be much help. Here's an example of good bokeh with the 70-200mm f/4L, and its even at f/10. Notice the bird is near the min. focus distance and the leaves in the background are several feet behind the bird.</p>

<p>whoops, here's the bird...</p><div></div>

<p>and here's one taken with the f/2.8 version. With the subject far away and the background not too far behind him, there isn't much bokeh at all. I don't know what you're shooting, but the big advantage to the f/2.8 version is having the extra stop for low light capability, I'm not certain it would help with background blur. At fairly long focal lengths of 70-200mm, f/4 should create great bokeh if you set up the photo right.</p><div></div>

<p>So many answers so fast. Thank you!</p>

<p>I realized that I did not provide some vital informations for the answers. I photograph mostly landscapes and portraits. Most of my portraits are on location and not on a studio.</p>

<p>@ Matt Laur</p>

<p>I really love the visual quality of bokeh of the f/4L, but I would like more (amount of) bokeh. I was wondering if the f/2.8L would give me a much shallower DoF than the F/4L.</p>

<p>@ G Dan Mitchell</p>

<p>I wonder that too. The 85mm f/1.8 is the other option, but it is less versatile.</p>

<p>@ Phillip Wilson</p>

<p>That is exactly what I am looking for. A shallower DoF.</p>

<p>@ Natan<br>

<br />Very beautiful picture. I understand that if the nearer the subject and farther background, the best the bokeh is. However, sometimes I can not control these distances, so I was wondering if the f/2.8L would deliver a better bokeh (in terms of more amount of bokeh or a shallower DoF) than the f/4L.</p>

<p>Hi Antonio,</p>

<p>I have owned the f/4 and moved to the f/2.8. The above comments are on spot - the bokeh is very similar. The big difference is in the weight. I primarily do cultural photography so I'm walking around with the lens on my shoulder for up to 8 hours. I'm a pretty sturdy guy, so the extra weight isn't oppressive, but I won't lie; I can tell the difference. For me the extra aperture is worth it.</p>

<p>In telling <strong>you</strong> whether to change or not, you need to ask yourself how much you'll be carrying it. Another thing that helped was the Black Rapid side sling which relieved the pressure from the weight. My advice - in an idea world you'd rent it for a day or two and make sure you can comfortably carry it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was wondering if the f/2.8L would deliver a better bokeh (in terms of more amount of bokeh or a shallower DoF) than the f/4L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you use the f2.8 lens at f2.8 then yes you will get a shallower depth of field and 'more' bokeh because that is what f2.8 does compared to f4. If you use the f2.8 lens at f4 then no, both lenses will be the same.</p>

 

<p>Antonio, I originally bought the f/4 and the quality is nothing short of superb. However without the IS I was occasionally missing the results I was looking for in what can be very indifferent light here in the UK. I decided to pick up the f/2.8 and it's just so much more versatile. Yes, it's way heavier but I do hike with it all day and for me it's well worth it. Indulgent as it is, I just can't bear to part with the slower lens and use it when I'm carrying a tripod.<br>

I have borrowed a 1.4x TC (or do they call them extenders? :) ) and find the results absolutely fine up to 12x8. Having read many other posts here I wouldn't entertain the 2x version because of the reported image degradation. As Matt says, if weight is an issue be very thoughtful before you commit to the lens though I assume that without IS it will be a deal lighter. There again, you might have to factor in the weight of a tripod.</p>

Antonio, I'm curious about what focal lengths in particular you use your 70-200 lens at. Depending on your answer to that, you may well be better served by a prime lens in that particular focal length...

<p>I like the bokeh on my f/4L IS:</p>

<p><a title="Loving Lavender by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3781976809_1665e3b477_b.jpg" alt="Loving Lavender" width="859" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>I often use my 70-200mm with the TC and in low light, so I wouldn't want it without IS.</p>

<p>Antonio for shallow DOF the F2.8 lens is better. I bought this one first as I needed the speed for indoor sports. I found that it was a lot of lens to carry around when out. It is one of those lenses that you might need for landscape use or nature and might not. Thus I added the F4 IS to carry around as it is half the weight so you can carry extra wide angle lenses or similar without feeling overloaded.</p>

<p>To follow up on my (much) earlier post in this thread, here is one example of many that I have using this lens:<br>

<img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2832-3/DesertSunflower20090403.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Dan</p>

<p>Really, I see lots of great bokeh in this thread from the f/4, so what's not to like? How would you improve that bokeh?</p>

<p>@ Matt Welsh</p>

<p>I plan to carry the lens (in a camera backpack with other lenses) for the whole day for several consecutive days and weight is one of my concerns. Most of my pictures are made while I am on vacation and I am starting on the portraits fiels while I am at home. This year, I am planning to go to Spain, Hawai and the Inca Trail, so I will be in several beautiful places with my backpack for several days. I am wondering if I will be able to carry the lens all day long. I would like to rent it before buying to test, unfortunately, I can not rent it before buying, there are no lens rental companies in Rio de Janeiro, where I live.</p>

<p>@ Mike Hitchen</p>

<p>I am planning the use the 2.8L at f/2.8 most of the time.</p>

<p>@ Jim McDonald<br>

<br />The reports on the 1.4x TC (I don't know why Canon call them tele extenders) are very good with both lenses and the ones with the 2.0x TC are not so good, but I would like to reach 400mm.</p>

<p>@ Mark Anthony Kathurima</p>

<p>The focal lenghts I use most are 70mm, 85mm and 200mm. I could use the 50mm f/1.4 and two steps in the direction of the model, the 85mm f/1.8 which I am thinking about buying and a 200mm f/2.8L, but I think the zoom could be more versatile, do you agree?</p>

<p>@ David Stephens</p>

<p>Which TC do you use: 1.4x or 2x?</p>

<p>@ Philip Wilson</p>

<p>I am considering a two lens approach. The f/4L for landscape and travel, so I can carry it all day long in my backpack and the f/2.8L for portraits. The only con of this approach is price, so I am considering it carrefully.</p>

<p>@ G Dan Mitchell<br>

<br />Your picture of the flower is very beautiful. My first picture with the 70-200 f/4L is similiar to this one in terms of bokeh, but sometimes (specially with larger subjects, farther from the camera), I could not achieve a similar bokeh and I was wondering if that was because of the larger DoF of the f/4L when focused on a distant subject @ f/4.</p>

<p>@ David Stephens</p>

<p>I have pictures with great bokeh from my 70-200 f/4L and pictures with poor bokeh. I am not using my computer now, so I can not upload samples, but I will do so when I arrive home, so you can see what I am talking about.</p>

<p>I use the 1.4x TC on my f/4L IS.</p>

<p>For someone that doesn't own either yet and thinks they'll need 400mm, then they should seriously consider the f/2.8L IS II combined with the 2.0x TC III. I've seen a review of the new series III TC and it is considerably sharper than the old TC. That combination will give you 70-400mm that's fast enough to AF when you run across birds and wildlife. Of course, that begs comparison to the 100-400mm.</p>

<p>Just fyi, I jump from my 70-200mm with the 1.4x TC to my 500mm f/4 and really feel no "gap". I've taken some pleasing bird shots with my 70-200mm 1.4x TC combo, but 400mm is really one of the sweet spots for birds. If I didn't own the 500mm, then I'd seriously be considering the f/2.8, but mainly for birds, not bokeh or speed.</p>

<p>Antonio - for portraits consider the 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2. Either one will get you more background blur than an f/2.8 lens for most camera->subject->background scenarios. (I say most because if the background is way off in the distance the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm and f/2.8 will actually give more blur. If the background is closer the other lenses will.)</p>

<p>At pbase.com you can search for images based upon specific lenses. Comparing images from both lenses there might help with your decision.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28u">http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28u</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u">http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u</a></p>

<p>Once there, click the "more" link at the right to see additional samples.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>@ G Dan Mitchell</em><br /><br /><em>Your picture of the flower is very beautiful. My first picture with the 70-200 f/4L is similiar to this one in terms of bokeh, but sometimes (specially with larger subjects, farther from the camera), I could not achieve a similar bokeh and I was wondering if that was because of the larger DoF of the f/4L when focused on a distant subject @ f/4.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are several factors that can affect the quality of the bokeh:</p>

<ul>

<li>The aperture - larger apertures shrink the DOF and make subjects behind/before the focal plane appear more OOF.</li>

<li>The focal length - longer focal lengths have the effect of shrinking the DOF, for several reasons.</li>

<li>Camera to subject distance - the closer you are the narrower the DOF</li>

<li>Subject to background distance - the greater this is the more OOF the background will be.</li>

<li>The ability of the lens to produce smooth out of focus image - somewhat affected by number of aperture blades and their shape, along with other factors.</li>

</ul>

<p>When you ask about the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 you recognize one of these five factors. It can make a difference, but it is not necessarily a major one and it is not without its downsides. For example, when you open up to get more out of focus background, you do so because you narrow the DOF... which makes in harder to get your main subject (assuming it is not two-dimensional) fully in focus.</p>

<p>So, in answer to your specific question, having only f/4 compared to f/2.8 can be <em>a factor</em> here, but <em>the difference from this alone is not going to be that huge</em>. When possible, you might want to think about the others, especially camera to subject distance and subject to background distance.</p>

<p>If you want to see a truly significant difference in bokeh, you'll want more than a 1-stop difference. For that you'd want to look into primes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>@ G Dan Mitchell</em><br /><br /><em>Your picture of the flower is very beautiful. My first picture with the 70-200 f/4L is similiar to this one in terms of bokeh, but sometimes (specially with larger subjects, farther from the camera), I could not achieve a similar bokeh and I was wondering if that was because of the larger DoF of the f/4L when focused on a distant subject @ f/4.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are several factors that can affect the quality of the bokeh:</p>

<ul>

<li>The aperture - larger apertures shrink the DOF and make subjects behind/before the focal plane appear more OOF.</li>

<li>The focal length - longer focal lengths have the effect of shrinking the DOF, for several reasons.</li>

<li>Camera to subject distance - the closer you are the narrower the DOF</li>

<li>Subject to background distance - the greater this is the more OOF the background will be.</li>

<li>The ability of the lens to produce smooth out of focus image - somewhat affected by number of aperture blades and their shape, along with other factors.</li>

</ul>

<p>When you ask about the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 you recognize one of these five factors. It can make a difference, but it is not necessarily a major one and it is not without its downsides. For example, when you open up to get more out of focus background, you do so because you narrow the DOF... which makes in harder to get your main subject (assuming it is not two-dimensional) fully in focus.</p>

<p>So, in answer to your specific question, having only f/4 compared to f/2.8 can be <em>a factor</em> here, but <em>the difference from this alone is not going to be that huge</em>. When possible, you might want to think about the others, especially camera to subject distance and subject to background distance.</p>

<p>If you want to see a truly significant difference in bokeh, you'll want more than a 1-stop difference. For that you'd want to look into primes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@ Mike Hitchen<br>

I am planning the use the 2.8L at f/2.8 most of the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, Antonio but I'm really puzzled why you are even asking the question in your original post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think that the bokeh provided by the f/2.8 lens version is better the one provided by the f/4L?I</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are going to use the f2.8 lens at f2.8 then the question of bokeh becomes irrelevant because the f4 will not do f2.8.</p>

<p>Regards weight, the f4L (non-IS) weighs 705g, f2.8L (non-IS) weighs 1310g - the difference is the weight of a 60D body. If it was strung round my neck for a day that to me would be a whole heap of additional weight I did not need. In a backpack for a day on the hills it may be a different matter. But again, several days on the Inca trail would be a different mater. This comes down to how fit you are and how experiened a trekker you are.</p>

<p>As for IS, to cover all the uses you mention my balance would be towards the f4 with IS rather than the f2.8 without IS. And for the difference in wieght get the 85mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8.</p>

<p>But you clearly have the dilemma of depth of field vs portability. If the f2.8 is a good price, then if your finances can afford it, I would buy it and if it does not suit you then you can sell it on at little loss (or maybe even a small profit).<br>

A tough decision.</p>

<p>As Daniel suggests you may want to just add a prime for portraits. The 85 F1.8 is a great buy as is the 50 F1.4 (they give you 80mm and 136mm on APS-C). Bothe have great Bokeh and shallow DOF. In either case i suggest you also buy the lens hood.</p>