70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8 IS for portraits & wildlife

[bryan_king1]

<p>Hello. I know there has been many comparisons of these lenses already, but I still have questions. I currently own a Canon 50D, 10-22 EFS, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and a 70-200 f/4 IS. I also have a 1.4 & 2X TC. I have 5 month old twins so I am taking mainly baby pics these days, but I also enjoy landscape, wildlife, and travel photography. My budget is limited.<br>

How much different is the backaground blur/bokeh of the 2.8 IS vs the f/4 IS? Is the difference significant enough for portraits to warrant the upgrade expense and extra weight? My thoughts are that I could also use the f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC for wildlife when the extra reach is needed. I cannot justify the expense of a 100-400IS or 400 f/5/6 right now. That is too much money for a lens that will get used for 2-3 trips a year and sit in the cabinet the rest of the time. I would likely sell the 10-22 and 70-200 f/4 IS to fund this "updrade" since the 10-22 is only used a few times a year as well.<br>

I am also considering getting either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 for portraits. I can afford to buy either of these without selling any current gear. My travel light kit would then be my 17-55 IS and either of these lenses (occasionally used w/ the 2x TC for extra reach) if I get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. <br>

What are your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>I am a lot like you. I have some lenses I use about 2 or 3 times a year and I always debate if its worth keeping them. You have some nice lenses so I would get a prime 85 or 100, everyone should own at least 1 fast prime. I own a few and the 85 is my favorite ( I never used the 100 but I do have the 100mm macro which is also very nice.<br>

<br /> The 70-200 2.8 IS is now around 2k. I have the 70-200 2.8 non IS and its an amazing lens ( but heavy ) so that is something to consider. I have a 30 dollar monopod that I use with my 5D2 for video and it helps if I need a slow shutter too. Many times with photos I have little use for IS but it can be helpful. In your situation I would ad the prime, when it comes to travel, many times I wish I had the F4 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>f/2.8 has only advantages if you actually use it. Therefore, examine the EXIF data of your images to find out. If you constantly shoot at f/4 you may have an advantage. If you already stop down your f/4 lens, then f/2.8 will be of no use at all.</p>

 

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>I'm with Tommy on this one. I would suggest getting the 85 f/1.8. I have a 70-200L 2.8 IS and love it, but I normally use the 85 f/1.8 for portraits. The 70-200L 2.8 IS actually works very well for portraits, but it's a heavy beast to lug around. Some might say the 85 is a bit long on an 50d, but it worked well for me on the 40d and now on a 5d.</p>

<p>As soon as you get rid of the 10-22, some situation will arise that you will need it. IMHO 17mm is not wide enough on an cropped camera. I had a Tokina 12-24 at one time and used if fairly often. Once I purchased a 5D, the 17-40L became my wide lens and the 12-24 went away.</p>

<p>Besides, you don't currently have any fast primes in your line up. I think you will be very happy with the 85 f/1.8. I can't think of anyone I know who owns one and doesn't love it.</p>

<p>Best regards........M. Scott Clay</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>From personal experience, I can compare the 70-200mm f/4 IS, 200mm 2.8, 100mm 2.8 (macro) and the 100mm 2.0. As you might expect, the 2.8 lenses give a smoother background than the f/4 zoom. The 100mm 2.0 is smoother yet. For wildlife, if you're worried about extra weight, the 200mm 2.8 is a sharp inexpensive lens and is very light. From reviews I read, it works better with the 1.4 extender than the 70-200mm 2.8 zoom.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 85 F1.8 is a great lens - possibly the best of Canons cheap lenses - construction is OK but quality is excellent. I find mine is better than my 70-200 f2.8 which is also a great lens.<br>

Any of the 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 non IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS will be great for most of what you want to do. I would not use the 2x TC as it is pretty poor, in addition the F4 lens will lose AF on anything but a 1 series body. If you want to get a TC get the 1.4x as it is a lot better. I personally shoot the 70-200 F2.8 non IS which is a slightly older (not completely sealed) design but the construction of all three lenses is really the same (the non IS F2.8 lacks a rubber seal at the camera mount). The F4IS and F2.8 non IS are about the same price but the F$ is smaller and lighter. The F2.8 non IS is a little bit smaller (narrower) and lighter than the IS version. Like Tommy I have been impressed with the F2.8 non IS. I did not consider the IS version as I use it for sports and also like the shallow DOF of the F2.8 lens for portraits. In terms of image quality I doubt if there is anything to choose between the three lenses. Part of the reason I bought the no IS over the F2.8 IS was price and weight but the main reason was that the two copies of the IS lens I tested were not as sharp as the non IS lens. This may have been just sample variation and the fact that the F2.8 IS was faily new when I tested it. It is hard to lose money on any of these three lenses- I bought mine about 5-6 years ago and for $1040 and they are selling on ebay in good condition for about $1100!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Don't do it!</p>

<p>Get yourself one of the portrait lenses to keep you happy and interested and save the money for the 100-400. On a crop camera I would preffer the 85 f1.8.</p>

<p>Have fun, Scott.</p>

[r_smith2]

<p>I would go with the 85 prime. I currently have both versions of the 70-200 IS lens and you have the best one imo. Since buying the f4 version a couple months ago I haven't even taken the f2.8 out of the camera case. I would sell it but it is going up in value everyday and is looking like a better investment than UPS forever stamps.</p>

[bryan_king1]

<p>Thank you all for your comments. <br>

Based on feedback, I am definitely buying either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 for portraits. Several people have recommended the 85 already. <br>

My main question for this post is how much different is the background blur/bokeh of the 2.8 IS vs the f/4 IS? Is the difference significant enough for portraits to warrant the upgrade expense and extra weight? My thoughts are that I could also use the f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC for wildlife when the extra reach is needed. I know this is less than ideal, but it will autofocus and I cannot justify the extra expense of another telephoto lens that gets very little use. The 70-200 on the other hand would get much more use for general photography, portraits, and landscapes.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>To elaborate on my earlier answer. There is little difference between the bokeh of the two IS zooms, a little thought into background and subject distances negates any real differences. The truth is, whilst I use, and really like, the 2.8 version it is a minimum f stop for a good portrait lens, if you can get the 85 it will give you just as good results the majority of the time and give you good flexibility. I have the 2x converter for the zoom but the IQ is not really up to scratch, I don't use the combination.</p>

<p>My thoughts were it would cost you money and lenses to do the "upgrade", it is very limited value, you loose too much with your not often used, but very nice to have, wide and your f4 zoom, the f4 is a genuine "I'll take it with me today I might use it" the f2.8 is not, all for 1 stop. The AF with the 2x on the 2.8 is nothing to write home about either, especially if the light or contrast are not too good.</p>

<p> I think get the portrait lens now and enjoy it and save for a longer lens that will work better than your 2.8 and 2x idea.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I'm another one voting for buying the 85/1.8.<br>

If you are keen on wildlife, then the consider adding the 300/4 IS to your collection, it's very light and gives really excellent results. With the 1.4x you have a very good 420/5.6 that still has AF. That and the 85/1.8 together would be about the price of the 70-200/2.8 IS (+/-).</p>

<p>My 2p.</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p>f/2.8 has only advantages if you actually use it. Therefore, examine the EXIF data of your images to find out. If you constantly shoot at f/4 you may have an advantage. If you already stop down your f/4 lens, then f/2.8 will be of no use at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use all my lenses at the maximum apertures, even when I stop down. I'm looking through the viewfinder at maximum aperture. That helps me see the image better. It's brighter. My cameras' autofocus systems use the max aperture. Helps them focus more accurately and faster.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>This was shot with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, but at aperture 5.6. When I purchased IS was not available on the f4.0 version, which made up my mind, but the f4.0 is also a very nice lens, slightly sharper, and <em>a lot</em> lighter/smaller.</p><div></div>