Is it worth getting EF 70-200 f/2.8L over 4L?

[ben_jamin]

I'll use it to shoot mostly family picture, children and grandkids

both indoor and outdoor. My friend suggested to get the cheaper 4L,

it's lighter and smaller and probably more portable, he said in low

light condition just bump up the ISO or use the speedlite flash, what

do you think? should I save a bit more to get the 2.8L (non IS) due

to the extra stop that is useful in low light condition? Sorry if

my question sound stupid....

[awindsor]

If you wish to do portraiture with your zoom then the 2.8 is definitely better. Secondly the faster lens activates the more accurate cross sensors in some of the Canon DSLRs and hence improves AF, it also gives a brighter viewfinder image.

 

Against that is the slight increase in cost and larger increase in weight. The f4 version focuses slightly closer than the f2.8 version. The weight is considerably more (705g versus 1310g). The f4 version is about an inch shorter than the f2.8. The f4 version fits vertically in my shoulder bag, and did in my backpack, where the f2.8 would not.

 

I have the f4 version and am very happy with it. I find the AF very fast in good conditions though in low contrast situations with the 1.4x extender sometimes it will go back and forth once before locking on.

 

However I don't use it for portraiture. I use prime lenses for that.

[heather_m1]

Hey Ben,

 

This article covers just about everything on Canon Lenses. There is a paragraph that compares the 4L with 2.8L. http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-fag/lenses.html#compatibility

70-200 4L USM

This lens, the smaller and cheaper sibling of the impressive 70-200 2.8L USM professional lens, is considered a bargain by many EOS users. It costs three times as much as the cheapie lenses but it�s sturdy, focusses quickly with a ring USM system with FTM and, most importantly, it has great optical quality. It�s bigger and heavier than the consumer lenses, but if you want something good but can�t afford the 2.8L, consider this lens. It doesn�t use a huge 77mm filter like the 2.8L - it uses a 67mm filter like the 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM. This is a little unfortunate, has hardly any other Canon lenses have 67mm filters.

 

Check out the rest of the article for more depth.

Good luck,

Heather

[dk.]

I would say Yes, but thats just me. :o)

The f2.8 will be better for your Portraits then f4.

Keep your eyes open for one on eBay that is in good condition and not to old (learn how to read the date codes) and make sure the person selling it does not have bad ratings too. I got my 70-200mm F2.8L on eBay and saved about $350.00 and its one of my better lenses I currently have 9 lenses. Good luck.

 

DK.

[pturton]

Another often over looked advantage of the faster f/2.8 lens is its ability to focus in compromised light conditions even if a flash is to be used.

[steve torelli]

Ben,

Having owned the 70-200 f/4 and currently owning the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, it would be no suprise to anybody to say that they're both great lenses. As far as optical quality, I've found very little if any, difference between the two.But there's no doubt I get more keepers with the IS enabled lens.I did the same thing you mentioned as far as bumping up the ISO for better low light results when I had the f/4. It usually did the trick for me too.Having said that, the 2.8,especially with IS, is a much more versatile lens especially indoors. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is an awesome lens but it carries an equally impressive price tag. Canon gives us three options in this FL,the 70-200f/4 will certainly do want you want it to do under the conditions you describe. Good Luck with your choice.

[vibin]

I have the 4L version and am very happy with it. Of course there have been times where I lost great images because of the lack of USM.

 

However, one advantage to the 4L over the 2.8L besides the cost is the weight. In your case it won't be much of a factor since you will be taking the photos at home and you can put down the camera when your arm tires. I do a lot of hiking and often times its a hassel to take the camera off to put it in my back pack. So then I carry the camera strapped around my neck with the 4L attached. Even with the 4L attached I have a sore neck and shoulders by the end of the day. So I can't imagine if it would be at all feasible to walk around all day with a 2.8L strapped around my neck.

[les]

Get the f4 version and only swith to f2.8 when you REALLY notice that f4 limits you in some way.

Although I never owned the f4 version - I had Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM (great lens) which I replaced recently with Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

 

The weight is one of the most important factors for a lens, I have learned this the hard way. Not that I regret lugging all this L glass around. I just may get me the f4 (keeping the 2.8 of course), purely because of the weight. If you ever carried around Canon 1v or 1D plus 70-200/2.8 - then you know I am right. If not - you may choose to follow the advice, or learn it the hard way (as I did) ;) ;)

[jake_cole]

Corrected <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html">Photonotes link</a>

[mcgarity]

One of the major reasons people suggest you get the f2.8 is to be able to shoot wide open and blur out a background. Thats a big advantage when doing portraits that you won't get from bumping up the ISO. That said if I were you I would NOT buy the f2.8 model.

 

The f4L is just as good optically as the f2.8L version at about half the cost. If you go with the EF 70-200mm f4L, you save enough that you could buy the zoom, an EF 50 f1.8, an EF 85mm f1.8 and still be a few hundred dollars ahead when you done. Optically the primes are going to be better than either one of the zooms and offer even more of an advantage speed wise.

[yakim_peled1]

If price and weight are not a problem, get the 70-200/2.8. However, I urge you to consider the 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. In indoor portraits they may be all you need. At the price of the 70-200/2.8 you can have 50/1.8 + 85/1.8 for indoor portraits and 200/2.8 or 70-200/4 for outdoor portraits.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ccrevasse]

If depth of field and background blur are considerations, then it is worth understanding the extent of the difference between the f/2.8 and f/4.0 lenses in these respects. For example, assuming you are shooting a portrait at a focal length of 100mm and a subject distance of 3 meters, then the depth of field at f/2.8 is 0.14 meters (2.93 meters to 3.07 meters). At f/4.0, the depth of field is 0.21 meters (2.90 meters to 3.11 meters). The difference in depth of field, then, is 3 centimeters to the foreground, and 4 centimeters to the background. At longer focal lengths, the difference in depth of field is less. Therefore, it is inaccurate to suggest that the f/2.8 lens provides a significant difference in depth of field and background blur. The difference, in fact, may be difficult to discern.

 

Here's a link to Bob Atkins' Depth-of-Field Table if you are interested.

[ccrevasse]

Here's the link. Sorry.

 

http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html