Other than the obvious, what is the performance difference between 70-200/2.8 and 4.0?

[michael_hintlian1]

Other than the obvious - price, size and weight, what is the real

performance difference between 70-200/2.8 and 4.0? The 4.0

also focuses closer I think. Has anyone done a side by side

comparison?

 

<p>

 

Appreciate all responses....thanks and happy new year.

 

<p>

 

Michael Hintlian

 

<p>

 

please visit my website: http://www.hintlian.com

[carlos_marrero]

With the 70-200 f/2.8 lens you are going to get more a background

blur with shooting portraits that you would with the f/4. also, you

use a faster shutter speed with the f/2.8 than you would witha f/4,

possibly avoiding a blurred photo, especially in low light. Also,

you can use the teleconverters on both, but with the 2.8 you get an

f/5.6 with the 2x coverter as opposed to the f/8 you get with the f/4

lens. I know the cost is high, but it depends on what you want.

I've owned both and like the f/2.8 better. I hope this helps.

[colin_miller]

Racked out to 200mm and focused at 15 feet, the f/2.8 lens will give

you 3.3 inches DOF, while the f/4 version doles out a massive 4.7

inches.<P>

<a href="http://members.home.net/gillettm/DOF.html">DOF calculator</a>

[eosdoc]

Which differences are obvious, and which are not?<BR>

Price, maximum aperture, weight, size, filter diameter,

tripod mount ring, optional image stabilizer, autofocus

operation with teleconvertors?<P>

Refer to the specifications and MTF charts at <a

href="http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/"

>http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/</a>, as

well as the comparison table at the <a

href="http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/

telephotozoom">Canon website</a>. For a better

lens calculator, try <a

href="http://members.home.net/jul.loke">this</a>

[michael_hintlian1]

First, thanks for the responses so far. I guess I must re-state the

question more clearly. I am looking for the performance

difference between these two lenses regardless of the "obvious"

size, max. aperture (which relates to DOF), etc. So...what have

you found about the performance difference between these two?

 

<p>

 

Again, thanks...and looking forward.

 

<p>

 

Michael Hintlian

[jake_f.]

Answer: Both lenses are EXCELLENT and top of the line performers in

my opinion.

[puppy_face2]

Barring extremes of sample variation, I think the optical quality of the two white

bazookas is the same.

[peter_phan]

I'll second Jake's answer. I don't think you can choose between

these lenses based on differences in optical performance. They are

both phenomenally sharp and optically excellent. If you need the

speed, get the 2.8L. If not, get the 4L and save yourself 600 grams

(1310g vs. 705g) and 570 dollars ($1130 versus $560, B&H after

rebate). If money and weight aren't a factor, get the 2.8L IS.

 

<p>

 

I have the 4L and love it. I didn't need the extra speed since I use

it for landscapes, static objects, etc. and I enjoy hiking and

traveling with it so it's light weight is greatly appreciated. With

the extra money I saved I bought an EF 85/1.8 for portraits. With

only way you could make this lens better is by giving it IS.

[michael_hintlian1]

Again, thanks all.

 

<p>

 

Jake...thanks, your response really helped. I didn't know if there

was a performance difference, and, it appears there isn't.

 

<p>

 

Peter...I must say I differ, if there was a performance difference I

would have gone the direction of the better performance. The

weight/price and other cosmetics are not the issue for me,

performance is. I am happy to learn they are both close to

identical in on the film performance. Your reply is appreciated in

any case.

 

<p>

 

Happy new year.

 

<p>

 

Michael Hintlian

[isaac sibson]

I have the F4L.

 

<p>

 

What I have HEARD (take with pinch of salt as appropriate) is that

the two lenses are as good as one another. I have heard one or two

say that the F4 is marginally slightly better. I've certainly NOT

heard anyone say that the F4 is worse.

 

<p>

 

I just reckon on the two lenses being the same, one smaller,

lighter, cheaper, and the other a stop faster. Certainly the F4 lens

is NOT an optical compromise in comparison to the F2.8.

[lee_shively]

I have the f/2.8 model. Other than the comments made previously, I

have to mention the use of Canon's Extenders. I use the 1.4x on this

lens a lot of the time (98-280mm f/4 equivalent). It gives up very

little sharpness and autofocus is still fast and accurate. Used with

a 2x, it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 equivalent that still would be

acceptable in sharpness and would continue to autofocus. The f/4

model, while having a great reputation for performance on its own,

would not be quite as useful with the extenders since it would lose

an extra stop.

 

<p>

 

Other than the application of extenders, I consider any performance

differences to be marginal.

[isaac sibson]

Just to add to that...

 

<p>

 

The F4 works very well with the 1.4X TC also. I don't have a 2X TC,

so I have not tried that combo (nor would I really bother...I have a

300 F4L IS also).

 

<p>

 

Basically, both lenses make fine 98-280s with the 1.4X TC, both

respectively a stop slower than their original speeds.