Canon EF 70 - 200 USM IS.. but f/2.8 or f/4 or ...?

[alp_hizal]

Well, the fat f/2.8 suck more light than f/4. They both have IS. Both are "L"

glass. Both are weather sealed. f/4 IS is newer but doesnt come with tripod

ring etc. we all know these, right?

 

According to photozone reviews;

 

f/4 is clearly sharper than f/2.8 (MTF's)

f/4 s CA's are lower

 

Sample shots from various testers prove these results.

 

Only difference (as a plus) is f/2.8 is faster.

 

Here comes the question;

 

Why why why would someone buy 70 200 f/2.8 instead of a 135 f/2 or 200 f/2.8

with a 50 f/1.4 for concerts?

 

ok ok zoom = freedom but image quality?

 

Primes will cost more ok, but i think a set of good primes will outperform a

zoom. Am i wrong?

 

I'll cough out a big amount of cash for fast glass so i want to be sure...

 

Thanks for your time & answers.

 

Alp

[PuppyDigs]

"Why why why would someone buy 70 200 f/2.8 instead of a 135 f/2 or 200 f/2.8 with a 50

f/1.4 for concerts?

 

ok ok zoom = freedom but image quality?"

 

Ever try changing lenses elbow to elbow with a bunch of drunks and stoners? Not easy and

you might get beer up your mirrorbox. A fast zoom is the way to go if you're carrying only

one camera.

[hjoseph7]

"Why why why would someone buy 70 200 f/2.8 instead of a 135 f/2 or 200 f/2.8 with a 50 f/1.4 for concerts?"

 

Is that the only type of pictures you are going to be taking for the rest of your life with your $1000+ lens ? If it is, then buy the primes. I bought my Canon IS 70-200 F2.8 for convenience. I heard allot of great stories about the F4, but the reason I spent the extra bucks to get the F2.8 is that I got tired of "the other photographer" at an event, selling loads of pictures that I could not take with my 3.5-5.6.

 

That's when I decided to invest in a fast lens. Some people might think otherwise. They might consider the savings of a slower lens, the better sharpness, the charts they have read, the numbers, the reviews etc.

 

I made my decision because I wanted to feel more comfortable in dim light situations. (IS) lens, or not.

[awindsor]

Flexibility and IS probably . Of course that is only a theoretical position on why someone would buy a 70-200/2.8 IS for concerts. My gig kit consists of 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 and the f2.8 lenses are too slow for the conditions I shoot in.

 

I also have a 70-200/4 non-IS which I adore. The 70-200/2.8 IS was too heavy for me to put it in my walkaround kit.

[John Crowe]

You are absolutely correct, and I do choose fast primes over zooms for the tremendous image quality. The only caveat to that is specifically what you want to use it for, and that is concerts. It has been many many years since I have shot concerts so I must go on what I have seen and read here, plus a little common sense.

 

 

An f2.8 lens with IS would come in very handy for concerts. You don't need fast shutter speeds since there is not generally much action, but you do want as much light as possible still, to enable you to select the lowest possible ISO setting. The ideal lens would be the 200/2.8 L but it does not have IS, YET! If you think you can get close enough with an 85mm lens then the 1.2 L would likely take the place of IS and give you far superior image quality to one of the IS zooms.

 

 

The option you have is to use one of the primes you mention, 50/1.4, 135/2, or 200/2.8, with a powerful flash, that you can use to provide "fill" light mixed with the stage lighting.

 

 

The darkest event I photograph these days is indoor swim meets where I use a Nikon 200/2 on a 10D with a telezoom flash to bring out more accurate colours and to add punch to the images. I am able to use ISO 100 with this combo to maintain image quality.

 

 

With respect to image quality, my Zeiss 85/1.4 and Nikon 200/2 will clearly outperform any zoom with that range.

[awindsor]

I am not too obsessed with image quality it is a matter of getting enough light. I shoot at ISO 1600 and 1/50 at f1.8 in the darkest of the clubs. That is absolutely pushing the limit of what I can hand hold but is already in the zone where you are running into problems with subject movement.

 

Puppy Face is exactly right about how some concerts can be. Most of these concerts will not allow you to shoot without a pass and this can often get you better access.

[alp_hizal]

Thanks to all who replied.

 

well, it seems that 70 - 200 f/4 is out of the list. (until sunny outdoor shots :)

 

So a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 coupled with a 135/2 will do the trick for me, i think!

 

Still hard to decide between 135/2 and 200/2.8 but 135/2 sounds better for concert. maybe i'd go with 70 - 200 f/4 for 200mm end and shoot outside and crisp :)

[gdanmitchell]

A difference that someone can claim to measure, given a fine enough measuring system

and careful enough observation, is not necessarily a difference that has any significance in

the real world. Any differences in optical quality between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the

70-200 lens are probably insignificant or imaginary.

 

As to the prime versus zoom question... the zoom obviously provides greater flexibility in

many situations and can simplify shooting. While the absolutley optimal image quality

edge

may frequently go to the primes, the difference is often not major and probably won't be

noticed in many cases. In those cases where it does matter and will be noticed one might

choose the primes.

 

If you need an extra stop or two to capture a moving subject then primes can take you

farther in that direction than zooms.

 

It's not about what is "best" in a universal sense - it is about what is best for the particular

task at hand.

[andrew_luke2]

When I shot shows a while back, I used a 28 1.8 and a 85 1.8 on a pair of rebels and shot both wide open. I'd end up around 1/60 pushing 800 a stop.

 

sometimes a 2.8 zoom isn't an option. it's cool to be able to shoot 200mm at 1/15 and get a solid pic but concerts move...even at 1/125 now on a 50mm f/1.4 at 2.0 and 1600 I've had trouble at the punk shows I go to with motion blur.

 

a lot of times you get lucky at good venues and get good light for the first 3. I've gone to shows here in socal at the henry fonda, house of blues, and the Wiltern and have never seen a white zoom on a camera (granted none of these are major label stars). most use the 70-300 IS or I've seen many with the 24-105L. but when it comes to local shows...3200 and a 2.8 will not save you...I shot a few months ago at 3200, 1.8, and 1/40 with my 50 1.4. It can be rough.

[pbizarro]

There is no "one lens do it all" solution. That is why you see photographers carrying zooms and primes. Horses for courses.

[William Michael]

>>> So a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 coupled with a 135/2 will do the trick for me, i think!

 

Still hard to decide between 135/2 and 200/2.8 but 135/2 sounds better for concert. <<<

 

As you are undecided about the 135mm vs. 200mm, in this case you might consider the x1.4MkII teleconverter with the 135mmF2, to extend the reach of you kit.

 

Although I endorse the first post questioning carrying only one body and subsequently conveniently facilitating the necessary lens changes.

 

WW