buy 70-200 f4.0 now or save for the 2.8 IS?

[from earthy]

which one for 350D? 70-200 f4.0 now or save in 2years time for the 2.8

IS? I shoot weddings but not very often but a shoot portrait in studio

a lot and I also love shooting fashion shows.

[cnhoff]

I love my f4. Very good optical quality and very solidly built.

 

Maybe you want the shallow DOF of f/2.8 though...

[cnhoff]

...for portrait work i mean :)

[from earthy]

for me the f4 is shallow enough. how bout the bounce flash? ISO800 at f4 is enough indoors using 420EX?

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

You have to save two more years to get the 2.8 IS?

<BR>Definitely get the f4L -you'll have no problem at all selling it for little loss when the time comes

[from earthy]

yes 2years :(

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I've shot 100 with bounce flash using the 28-135/3.5-5.6 and a 420EX, though admittedly that's pushing the limits of the flash unit's power. I've also shot 400 with bounce flash with the same equipment and it's been well within the unit's power.</p>

 

<p>Of course, this depends on the size of the room. But unless you're used to shooting in cavernous spaces, f/4 and a 420EX should be fine at 800.</p>

 

<p>Given the choice you present (4 now, or nothing until two years from now), I'd say get the 4 now. By all accounts it's a sharp lens, and from playing with it briefly I can say its handling is lovely. It'll get you a lot of shots you wouldn't get during the two years you'd be without a lens :-)</p>

[panos_voudouris]

From one of your previous thread:

 

"choosing between this three set up for my 20D. I mainly shoot weddings and studio

portraits.

 

1. Sigma 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 2. Sigma 20mm 1.8, 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.8

mkII, 85mm 1.8

 

I already have 17-40 f4l, 28-135IS"

 

In that thread you said you'd be buying a 35 and 50 for a start. You then write another

thread about upgrading your 420EX to a 580EX. Then you ask about the 580EX and

Elan7. Now you say you have a 350D (your 20D not good enough?) So I really don't see

what you have to save for, you seem to have tons of money to

spend on equipment you never use, because if you did you'd know what to buy.

 

So, just

pretending I am part of this thread, I'd say, sell the 350D you now have, sell the Elan7, sell

the 28-135IS,

don't buy the

35 and 50 you said you'll buy, don't upgrade your flash, use all that money you'll save and

get plus what you have for the 70-200/4L and there you go,

you have your money for your Canon EF 1200mm which you'll be asking for next, in your

fantasy world where you mainly shoot weddings, but then not very often, where you shoot

studio portraits a lot but you love shooting fashion, while I really think you just stay home

and browse magazines imagining what you could do if you had all that stuff.

 

Unless I am wrong of course, feel free to explain to us how all these threads you started

are relevant.

[taner]

From Earth; good to have you back!

[mark_chappell]

I love my 70-200/4 for its optical quality, smooth operation, and fairly small size. There

are times, however, when I really wish it had IS. I'd second the suggestion above to get

the f4 now and sell it for moderate loss in 2 years when you can go for the 2.8 IS. Two

years is a long time to go without such an excellent lens.

[alam eldin]

Hi,

 

You may consider Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 hsm which bought in mint condition for usd600.

 

It is similar to the non IS canon version.

 

I'm sugesting this because this is a very very good lens with very good reputation and you can have it now( for its f/2.8 instead of canon f/4L) till you get the IS version.

 

Good shooting

[shlomi]

I have a 70-200mm f/4L and I am not very happy with it.

 

The optical quality and USM are fine, but the f/4 is a significant limitation. You can put only 1.x teleconverters (and still have AF). The bokeh is not appealing at all with TC.

 

When shpooting action I feel significaltly limited both by DOF and but shutter speed.

 

If you want to have the really right lens get the 2.8 IS - don't kid yourself that for less than half the price you will get something "almost" identical in quality.

 

Shlomi Bernthal

www.shlomi.net

[danny lee]

maybe I am a girly man, but I like the F4's light weight compared to the 2.8, but then again, I'm a girly man...

[tony_san2]

Looks like the 70-200/f4.0L is lightweight, great optics, but has a slow aperture. The 70

-200/f2.8L is faster but heavier and more costly. The 70-200/f2.8L IS gives you IS but is

even more expensive (which means more time) ...

 

I think your best bet would be a 100/f2.0 (or an 85/f1.8). It's sharp, lightweight, very fast

(f2.0), less expensive than the 70-200/f4.0, and later when you get the 70-200/f2.8 IS L,

you'll still want to keep this lens for the weight, and speed.

 

Tony

 

PS: I've got the 70-200/f2.8 and a 100/f2.0, and I like them both.

[davef]

I would buy the f4.0 now. It is a fantastic lens, and there are some good deals on eBay, if you're interested in saving even more money. Just don't get caught up in a bidding war.

 

I got my f4 on eBay, and it is great. I love everything about this lens, especially the lighter weight.

 

Hope this helps.

[bevan_donovan]

I traded my 80-200 f2.8 'L' for the 70-200 f4, mainly because of the 1/2 kg difference in weight (my main style is travel photography).

 

As Much as I really like the f4, which IMHO is as good as its reputation, I miss having the extra stop of the 80-200, much more than I thought I would.

 

Bottom line, if you need f2.8 then save for the f2.8 is otherwise you'll be very happy with the f4.

 

Cheers

Bevan

[leeuwtje]

Go for the f/4. Especially with digital where one is more flexible in ISO. For low light portrait get the 85 1,8 and you are set.

 

I myself have the 70-200 f/4 and the 135 f/2 for low light / extrem shallow DOF. The f/4 is a great lens!

[chris_chris1]

What it really all boils down to is weight (and it's importance to you). Flashes and 400 speed films have gotten so good these days that losing 1 stop in hardware is almost negligible. I've used my brother's 70-200 f/2.8, and find it much more cumbersome and backbreaking than my f/4. If you keep yourself parked all day, then this is probably no issue; but if you stay on your feet all day or want to bring the lens on safari, vacations, theme parks, etc, the 2.8's heft can become prohibitive. I shoot mostly thoroughbred racing, and when faced with the 2.8 IS at more than double the price and exactly double the weight, it was a no brainer for me. In fact, I'd pay extra to NOT carry the extra weight around. It sounds silly, but with a fully loaded vest and packed camera bag, it makes a big difference.

 

(Some people have even said that the image quality of the f/4 is superior to the 2.8. Canon's own MTF charts can confirm this. The f/4 has a fluorite element which the 2.8 does not.)

[mike_kim]

Welcome back... I haven't saw your posting nearly one year ;p

 

If you really do shoot wedding professionally, then you should be getting 2.8L IS. IS and extra speed can be important things in professional world. Plus it will increase the range of your flash for fashion show.

[shlomi]

I think it's exaggerated to say that a one stop difference is not significant nowadays. When shooting indoor sports that 1 stop is the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 1600 - there is a definite difference. Anyone shooting basketball for instance would feel a real difference.

 

When shooting outdoors, the f/4 can go only to 280mm with 1.4x TC, which means you can't shoot birds well with it - birds need at least 400mm due to their distance keeping. So there too the f/2.8 allows you to mount a 2x TC and go to 400mm.

 

And of course when shooting any king of action or portrait and wanting to isolate the subject from its background - there is a big differemce in background blur between f/4 and f/2.8.

 

For me these are three very big differences. Are they worth the extra weight - for a pro definitely yes. For an amateur, depending on his priorities.

[ccrevasse]

"And of course when shooting any king of action or portrait and wanting to isolate the subject from its background - there is a big differemce in background blur between f/4 and f/2.8."

 

Actually, Schlomo, the difference in depth of field between f/2.8 and f/4 is not very great. For instance, according to Bob Atkin's DOF calculator, the DOF of a 100mm lens with a subject at 3 meters is 2.92 meters to 3.07 meters for f/2.8, and 2.90 meters to 3.10 meters for f/4.

[r._j.]

Uh, I assume you 'work cheap' if you're really shooting weddings and need "two years" to afford a 70-200mm f2.8 lens! (?)

[sjg]

<em>Actually, Schlomo, the difference in depth of field between f/2.8 and f/4 is not very great. For instance, according to Bob Atkin's DOF calculator, the DOF of a 100mm lens with a subject at 3 meters is 2.92 meters to 3.07 meters for f/2.8, and 2.90 meters to 3.10 meters for f/4.</em><p>

It is perhaps worth pointing out that 3m is a pretty close working distance for a 100mm lens.<p>

If you look at a more realistic distance of say 20m, then the difference in DOF is nearly 4m which can easily be the difference between a background in focus and out.<p>

--sjg

[pradeep satyaprakash]

Buy the 70-200 f/4.0 L now and take photos as you can. Once you earn enough, sell it for little loss (maybe 10-15% less) and invest the proceeds into a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. Simple.