70-200 f/2.8L IQ Wide Open

[greg_segallis]

I have spent months reading reviews and opinions on the four versions of the 70-

200 L. I have also tested lenses, trying to assess the value of IS vs. non-IS

as well the trades between the f/4 and the f/2.8. Just when I think I've made

up my mind, something makes me question my decision. I don't want to ask the

same questions again, but the one thing I'm trying to evaluate is the IQ of the

f/2.8 wide open.

 

Everything I have seen in reviews and test shots seems to show a significant

improvement in sharpness when the f/2.8 is stopped down to f/4. At f/4 all four

versions seem to be equal in terms of IQ.

 

So I would hate to shell out an extra $600 for the f/2.8 version and then wind

up shooting at f/4 nearly all the time to maximize IQ. I realize there are

situations where the f/4 just won't cut it and the f/2.8 (even wide open and a

bit soft) is better than no shot.

 

But given a slightly better than worse case situation I am curious about which

would give the better picture between the "big" f/2.8 vs. the "little" f/4 lens

in the following situations:

 

CASE#1: Big lens at f/2.8 and ISO 200 vs. Little lens at f/4 and ISO 400 ****

 

CASE#2: Big lens at f/2.8 and ISO 400 vs. Little lens at f/4 and ISO 800 ****

 

CASE#3: Big lens at f/2.8 and ISO 800 vs. Little lens at f/4 and ISO 1600 ****

 

The IQ difference wide open is real, but is that difference greater or less

than the change in IQ between ISO settings?

 

Is it worth trading a little more noise during the few times I may have to

actually give up some sharpness and shoot at f/2.8, to gain some money (half of

another L series lens' worth) and a ton of weight during the other 95% of the

shooting I will be doing?

 

(The most frequent low light shooting I have done recently is stage

performances and I wound up using my 85mm f/1.8 at f/3.5 most of the time,

which is just about 1/2 stop between the two options I am considering).

 

Thanks, -Greg

[bobatkins]

The 2.8 lenses AF with a 1.4x attached. That's probably of more significance than trading small amounts of noise and sharpness.

 

Blurring backgrounds is also likely more important than slight sharpness/noise differences.

 

Size and weight are more important than slight sharpness/noise differences.

[beauh44]

Hi Greg, Almost every lens <I>improves</i> when stopped down. Also almost every lens gets worse if you stop it down too much. It's just the nature of the beast.<P>

 

If you look at almost every lens in existence it'll hit a "sweet spot" stopped down usually a couple of stops, then gradually get a bit worse as one keeps going. Almost every lens is not at its best at f/22 either.<P>

 

That said, some <B>are</b> better than others, wide open. I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and IMHO it's in the "very good-to-excellent" range, wide open.<P>

 

Here's a portrait at ISO 100, f/2.8, shot outdoors with a 1Ds Mark II:<P>

 

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4761976-md.jpg"> </center><P><P>

 

And here's a concert shot of Victor Wooten, same lens, shot at ISO 1600, wide-open using a 20D if I recall:

 

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5304967-md.jpg"> </center><P><P>

 

The last wouldn't have been possible for me without that f/2.8 aperture because even then, at ISO 1600, I was hovering around 1/30th of a second, hand-held. I'd <B>never</b> give mine up!

[colinsouthern]

Greg,

 

When all is said and done, usually a lot more gets said than ever gets done!

 

Buy the best one you can afford and go take some photos!

 

One point I've made in the past - and it's worth making again re: the sharpness of IS -v- non-IS ...

 

... if you want to do comparitive tests you'd have to shoot with both on a tripod - and if you always shoot on a tripod then you probably don't need IS. HOWEVER - if you hand-hold then I can guarantee that the IS version(s) will be a truck load sharper on average when your shutter speeds start hovering around 1/15th!

 

Now go do some shooting!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[uncle_ziba]

don't worry about noise up to ISO 800 . Of course any lens is better stopped down a bit, but the L lens wide open at 2.8 is going to be just fine.

 

I don't think I can take a picture so good in every aspect that this supposed reduced quality of an L lens at 2.8 wide open would be a deciding factor. I wish I was that good.

[david_bradley1]

Ah, to have the luxury of being burdended by the need to choose between f/2.8 and f/4.

 

Greg, I think you may be concentrating too much on the technical aspects of the photograph and not enough on the soul of it. I shoot a Nikon 80-200/f2.8 (yes, a Nikon lurker on the Canon board), and I can tell you that the look you get shooting wide opten at 2.8 can be a BEAUTIFUL thing in the right situation. The depth of field is so shallow that the whole frame isn't going to be in focus anyway; it's a kind of image that isn't about sharpness. Abstract things like bokeh come into play. The images can be quite beautiful even if they aren't sharp in a testbed sense. I'm sure the same is true of the Canon equivalent.

 

I shoot landscapes almost exclusively and got the 80-200/2.8 because it was the only game in town (hence my opening comment about having the f4 lens available as an alternative from which to choose). However, as someone who owns an expensive camera kit I am sometimes asked to shoot the occasional portrait or event. The first time I used the 80-200/f2.8 I was blown away by the wonderful candidates I got shooting wide open. The background disappears into a wonderful bokeh and -- I swear I am not making this up -- the images are sometimes so flattering that I get the credit for making all my friends appear better looking.

 

If weight, size, or cost aren't considerations, then I'd say go with the 2.8 because of the extra flexibility. The difference between f2.8 and f4 sounds insignificant but the shallower depth of field makes a surprising difference to certain kinds of photographs.

[corey_gardner1]

I have the 2.8 version and the image quality wide open is excellent. I shoot wide open more than half the time so the 2.8 is very useful for what I do. I think you're at a point where you're just going to have take the plunge and see what works for you. Buy the 2.8 version from a place with a good return policy (BH Photo for example), use it for a week and see if it meets your needs. If not, trade for something else.

[alan_myers]

Greg,

 

I've got the 70-200/2.8 IS... but that doesn't mean it's the right lens for you...

 

 

If you ever need to use f2.8, only the f2.8 lens can give you that. Any of the 70-200s can give you f4.

 

If you ever need to hand hold the lens at 1/30, racked out to 200mm on a 1.6X D-SLR, the IS lenses can help you out. The ones without IS can't. Any of the lenses can be used very effectively on a tripod or at significantly higher shutter speeds.

 

 

There are some things I can do thanks to IS on my lens, that I couldn't manage without it. There are times I need f2.8, and am thankful I've got it. The features were important enough to me that I was willing to pay the higher price and be weighed down with a larger and heavier lens.

 

But, just because these features are important to me, doesn't mean either of these features are important to you. Ain't it great to have a choice?

 

So, just decide your budget and what's important to you, go get the lens and start taking some pictures with it!

[robin_sibson1]

Greg, as David said, you've done the technical homework, and, unsurprisingly, it's told you that these are all good lenses, but in what you've said in your posting you haven't factored in what you shoot and how. That can make the decision very easy: for me, the 70~200/4 IS was a no-brainer; for you, the outcome might be different. And if you still can't make up your mind, perhaps the differences don't matter anyhow.

[elliot1]

If you need the faster aperture, you need the faster aperture. Software like DXO can correct for things like lens softness.

 

Based on my experience with DXO, an f2.8 image processed with DXO will be as good or better than an unprocessed image shot at f4.

[bob_osullivan]

Greg:

 

The problem is, there are so many cases where it will be case #3. More than I anticipated. I have a bad habit of buying the cheaper widget and then upgrading later and losing money in the process. I had the 70-200 F4L. A fine lens for sure. But there were so many times, I needed that one more stop, remember it's twice as much light. So, I recently upgraded to the non-IS version of 70-200 F2.8L. I inntially struggled with the IQ at 2.8. But then a very wise member hear advised me to print out some of my pics that I thought looked softer than F4. I did this, and the IQ is great. It does look soft compared to F4 on the same lens, but that's because F4 through F8 are so stellar. When it's very critical, I'll still use primes like my 85 1.8. But for convenience, speed, and IQ this lens is hard to beat. You can take of the tripod mount and walk around with it, at least for a while, or use a monopod. MY saga was in a recent post, you can have a look here, it's only a few posts down from yours.

[john_bellenis]

I agree with most everything said here about the f2.8 wide open, it's a very usable aperture

and with a little post processing you can acheive superb results. Most complaints come

down to user error in the end due to the shallow depth of field and focusing errors

(typically focus and reframe).

 

I own both the f2.8 IS and the f4 non IS versions of the 70-200 - mainly for redundancy,

but also because they are both superb lenses with different advantages. I find myself using

the f4 the most as it's so much lighter and easier to hand hold for long periods. However,

when you need extra stop, and/or IS, the big lens is invaluable. Either lens will make you

very happy used properly and within their necessary compromises and limitations. But if

it's at all possible, when people "upgrade" to the f2.8 they could think about keeping the

f4 (especially if it's old and has not much value used). It provides great back up and has its

own distinctive advantages - especially when shooting hand held for hours, traveling light

or hiking.

[frank_dzambic]

Wow Beau, she's gorgeous. I have the non-IS version of this lens, and since questions about picture quality between the IS and non-IS versions often come up as well, I think you should send her my way so we can do some comparisons.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 70-200/2.8L IS USM and have never used any of the other 70-200s (other than briefly playing with them at camera shows, which is not a good way of judging their quality) so I can't compare the optics of the various lenses.</p>

 

<p>I have never felt the need to test the performance of this lens at various focal lengths and apertures. I get sharp pictures from it even wide open. Is it sharper at f/4? I have no doubt it would be; as others have said, virtually all lenses are sharper if they're stopped down a bit. And when used with the 1.4x II teleconverter, I always stop down at least one stop based on my experience with that teleconverter and the 300/4L IS USM (which was also sharp wide open, but I found that with the TC it was noticeably soft wide open). But I have no reason to be dissatisfied with it wide open, and I use it wide open without hesitation if that's the appropriate aperture for a given situation.</p>

 

<p>Unfortunately, my lens did not come with, and does not seem to attract, beautiful bikini models, so I can't provide any such photos. Maybe one day Santa will bring me one, and then I would definitely use this lens (along with my 50/1.4, which <em>does</em> disappoint me wide open but makes me happy at f/2 and very happy from f/2.8 onwards) to shoot her, including using the lens wide open.</p>

[pturton]

Greg,

 

For myself, a f/2.8 lens or wider wins on all counts. IS will not stop subject movement and some of the newer Canon bodies use more accurate focus systems on lenses f/2.8 or wider. Last Spring I shot dance dress rehearsals and recital for the first time; most of my successful shots were with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS at f/2.8. An f/4 lens would not have focused quickly enough and the shutter speed would have been unacceptable in most cases since I was pushing f/2.8 to the limit of my ability.

 

Beau,

 

Beautiful example but I'm sure she is too high maintenance for me ...send her to Frank;-)

[KenPapai]

Like others already have written, I've shot my 70-200 white bazooka at f/2.8 very often (and at many of its focal lengths) and YES it is a VERY sharp lens wide open.

 

If someone gave me an f/4L I'd never use it. I'd try to sell it as fast as possible. I wouldn't want one even for free for any reason, even if I had to keep it; it would be wasted on me. It would be like going back to driving an old Chevy after owning an M5 for 4 years.

[rocco1]

Get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I bet that after a few months of use, you won't even remember precicely what you paid. BUT - you will still be taking pix without wondering if the lens is going to do the job you got it for...

[greg_segallis]

Thanks for all the helpful advice! Sometimes I wish Canon only offered me one choice :-)

 

I have been leaning heavily towards the f/4 IS version. My thinking was it's easier to carry, seems to focus a bit faster due to lighter glass, and I would probably welcome the increased sharpness and depth of field at f/4 for most shots.

 

If I want to blur the background or shoot portraits (or most things where I have some freedom to move around), or shoot in lower light than the f/4 can handle, I would probably opt for my 85mm f/1.8 which I absolutely love at f/2.8 and above. I'm also going to get the 50mm f/1.8 II lens after trying my friend's.

 

I can't say that price isn't an issue but as a few have said, I'd rather not let price force me into a decision that I might regret later. I'll have this lens forever so cost isn't the primary factor, although the extra $600 could go towards another lens (like a 200mm f/2.8L prime or the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L).

 

I tend to overanalyze these things so that I'm totally sure of what I want before I take the plunge. Considering I got by with the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 for years with some excellent results, I probably am being way too critical of the f/2.8 sharpness wide open (I blame that on me buying the 85mm). But the weight is still something I need to consider.

 

Maybe I'll put an extra $10 towards a lotto ticket and then buy both if I win. :-)

 

Thanks, Greg

[DickArnold]

I have used a 70-200 2.8L for ll years. I have done newspaper work, sports, weddings, and portraits with it. I have dropped it, shot sports in driving rain(not recommended), rolled in the mud with it and it still works as good as the day I bought it. I have never agonized about softness at 2.8 or IQ. I sold a hell of a lot of pictures taken by this lens. And by the way, I have exhibited and won awards with it using that awful Canon 2.8 extender on this lens. If a pictures subjectively is usable I use it. I sure as hell do not worry about IQ. Neither my editor nor my wedding clients nor my portrait clients nor my gallery ever complained about my IQ at 2.8 or any other f stop for that matter. Oddly they were all interested in what was in the picture. Some didn't like my pictures but never because of my lens.

[tamandra]

I thought the IQ was pretty bad wide open on my new 70-200 IS, and have been really

frustrated with this. However, I just realized there's something wrong with the lens. I got it

from B&H a couple months ago. I recently tried to do manual focus, and the focusing ring

didn't turn very easily. Plus, I got some sand dust in it from a horse shoot, and was lightly

blowing air in there, when I noticed that something was off. There was a wider gap at one

part, and I pulled up on it, and it suddenly moved a lot easier. So there's a mechanical

issue there. The only "dropping" I did was the other day, it fell out of the floor of my car,

about two feet, in a very padded bag. So I doubt that could hurt it. Maybe during shipping?

Luckily, I live pretty close to Canon in Irvine, so I can go up and get it fixed under the

warranty. I hope!

Wish I would've figured it out earlier!

[lester_wareham]

"The 2.8 lenses AF with a 1.4x attached. That's probably of more significance than trading small amounts of noise and sharpness. "

 

Agreed, but Bob don't you mean the f2.8 AFs with the 2X attached, the f4 will AF with the 1.4X.

[greg_segallis]

Well I did it, I finally ordered the f/2.8L IS! I feel better now with all that pressure off. :-) I love the advice my daughter gave me - "Dad, you know you'll be happier if you get the better lens".

 

Ultimately, I figured with the f/2.8 I would never find myself in a situation where I wished had bought it but didn't have it to use. And something else that was very convincing was several sample pics I saw on various forums. Interestingly, it was the bright light shots that struck me most because of the DOF control. That's what made the shot for for me. So in the end my decision was influenced more by versaility and creative control than pixel peeping.

 

-Greg

[mark_chappell]

<I>The 2.8 lenses AF with a 1.4x attached. That's probably of more significance than trading

small amounts of noise and sharpness.</i><P>

 

Minor point: So do the f4 lenses.

[john_bellenis]

Greg you won't be disappointed - I have one and the 2.8L IS is a wonderful lens - you'll be

very happy with it. It's an investment that will last a lifetime if properly looked after. Now you

have to get out there and take pictures that are worthy of it! I'd start by taking pictures of

your daughter who offered you such sage advice!