70-200 f/2.8l IS vs 70-200 f/4l IS on 7D

[pgavalis]

<p>Greetings all. Recently made a huge switch from Pentax to Canon (7D). I WILL be purchasing one of the above lenses. Budget is of some concern but I am wondering...since this camera is so good at higher ISO's, will the f/4l be sufficient for high school gym sports and/or evening sports on the 7d? I will be using it for some portraits as well. I am fully aware of the IQ these lenses are capable of, as well as the price differential and the benefits of 2.8 over 4 but I am trying to be as frugal as possible, if possible. I ended up getting the kit lens (28-135) which seems like a fun all purpose lens and as mentioned, will be getting one of the lenses in question along with an 85mm. So I am just curious if I could get by with the f/4 or should I sell the kit lens and go all out for the 2.8? I.S. on either is a must for me. Anyone have samples using the f/4 on the 7d in the conditions I mentioned? Figured this was safe to post since it is a camera/lens specific question. Thanks, Pete.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Before the waves of opinion gush, Pete what do you intend to do with your images? That alone can make the difference.</p>

[blockphoto]

<p>Peter, I owned the f/4 (no IS) for a few years, and ultimately sold it and replaced it with the 2.8IS. The f/4 was great...IQ was comparable to the 2.8 (sharp, good color and contrast), but I found that when shooting indoors having an extra stop at my disposal was beneficial.</p>

<p>It's certainly true that modern cameras get you at least an extra stop or two in high ISO performance, but you still wind up with more noise and a compressed tonal range at higher ISOs, so I felt it was worth it to have one stop less noise and color aberration by using a faster lens (or alternately, equal noise and more depth of field when I needed it). Obviously the 2.8 also has much nicer bokeh and is better for isolating individual subjects. It is, however, a much larger and heavier lens (I think it may be twice the weight of the f/4) if that's of concern to you, and naturally there's the price difference to contend with. Version two of the 2.8 IS is on the horizon, so maybe that'll cause v1 to come down in price (or for more used copies to hit the market).</p>

<p>Both lenses are great, I don't think you'd regret having the extra stop to work with if you can live with the extra size and weight and the dent in your wallet. On the other hand, the kit lens might come in handy for closer/wider work. I should also note that when I bought the 2.8 I felt it necessary to get a vertical grip for my (at the time) 5D...it was heavy enough to unbalance the camera without a grip attached.</p>

<p>Scott makes an important point too, if you'll be printing small or posting small jpegs online, higher ISO isn't as much of a big deal, but if you're going to crop a lot or make big prints/jpegs, the noise will be more of a problem.<br>

<br /> Here's a 2.8 IS example...this is the sort of shot I wouldn't have been able to manage with the f/4; I was wide open at 1/60 and 200mm on a 40D, the ISO was as high as I could comfortably get it (I had to convert it to B&W and output it fairly small to deal with the noise):<br /> <img src="http://www.stupidstupidgaijin.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3109&g2_serialNumber=1" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

[pgavalis]

<p>Thanks to both...my intentions would be prints and most likely some web images. Nothing outrageously large at the moment...printing from my Epson 1280, possibly something larger from Mpix if someone wants one. The more I think about it the more I feel I am just going to end up with the 2.8, but was hoping for some 7d angel to show me I can get away with the f/4 for awhile.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Pete,</p>

<p>I have the 2.8 IS, I have never regretted it. It seems you are already second guessing yourself, if you start out like that and get the f4 you will regret it. Get the 2.8. Buy once.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I have the f2.8 (btw, there is a MKII in the pipeline). It is a very solid, very sharp lens. The f4.0 is supposedly <em>slightly</em> sharper, and it's IS more advanced, maybe good for one more stop?</p>

<p>One big plus about the f4.0: it is about an inch shorter, slimmer, and literally half the (not inconsiderable) weight of the f2.8. While the f2.8 is no big deal to heft or use, walk around with it for a day and you will know about it ;)</p>

<p>One consequence of being slimmer is it takes the somewhat unconventional 67mm filter size, compared to the more usual 77mm of a lot of the L-Series lens. This might be a factor if you're considering sharing a Circular Polarizer filter.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Pete, IS reduces the effect of camera shake, but does nothing for subject motion. To freeze motion you need, of course, a wider aperture, a higher ISO, or both to allow higher shutter speeds, so "faster" lenses are better for sports and action regardless of whether they have IS. From this it follows that a fast prime (such as an EF 85/1.8, 100/2, or 135/2 L) would be even better than an f/2.8 zoom, but of course it would be less versatile with respect to focal length. Anyway, whether you get an f/2.8 or f/4 zoom, I'd get the IS version for those occassions when you're shooting slow moving or still subjects. Having IS never hurts, and oftens helps.</p>

[pgavalis]

<p>Scott, Mendel, Mark, thanks. The IS would be for the portraits, still life, etc....understood. Second guessing, maybe..probably. But, there are a couple good deals available for the f/4 (used) for well under $1k, with a significant jump for the 2.8...and I could use that extra coin for peripherals like paper, ink, softbox, a third flash/lightsource, etc.. I should probably just rent one of each and decide from there but was taking the lazy and cheapo path...hoping for that 'one great decision making opinion'.....HA! I know you have all been there at one time or another! Cool camera and incredible..err, CRAZY menu and learning curve with this Canon system! Just when I thought I knew everything about a camera (Pentax k20d) I go and do something like this and feel like I never took a photo before!</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I have shot with both on my 40D and 5D. Few years back I rented both and I found out on the crop body (40d) now 7D, I didn't use the lens indoors much so at the time, the F4 was just as good. I then used it on my full frame, on the full frame the 70-200 can be used indoors very easily. So now the 2.8 IS is welded on my full frame I use it indoors ALL the time and for that I'm sooo glad I went after the 2.8 IS. Had I went for the F4, I too would have been upgrading. To me the 70-200 2.8 IS is the BEST zoom lens canon had made. Non comes close to it's performance. v/r Buffdr</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I have the 70-200mm f/4 IS. It is my favorite lens.</p>

<p>However, if I was shooting sports in a high school gym I would opt for the f/2.8. You need all the light gathering you can get even with the high ISO capabilities of the 7D.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>Highschool gyms and portraits, 85/1.8. Outdoor sports 70-200/2.8 L non-IS or 200/2.8 L, or used 300/4 L non-IS. The equivalent budget for the 70-200/2.8 IS L can go a long way.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>You can get by with the f/4 in high school gyms, IF they are well lit, but don't count on it. If budget is a concern, I'd go for the f/2.8 non-IS instead of the f/4 IS. The f/2.8 will make life a lot easier and make the photos look better as far as isolating the subject, which is desired for sports and portraits. Also, I would immediately sell the 28-135mm and get a wider lens. You should be able to evenly trade for a 17-85mm IS. This will give you a wider lens since the 28-135mm really isn't wide at all on a crop sensor, and you won't overlap as much after you get the 70-200mm. And you would never use the 70-135mm range of the kit lens anyways if you had the 70-200mm because the latter would have much better IQ.</p>

[markonestudios]

Cliche but true: You can stop down an f/2.8 lens to f/4; you can't do the latter. I would think that in lower light it will also aid your 7D to focus faster... If you can swing the 2.8 IS, I doubt you'd regret it. It's a pretty hefty lens though :)

[sbp]

<p> Both versions produce very high IQ. I use the f/4 for travel, but prefer the f/2.8 for DoF control and the ability to freeze motion. You might consider the f/4 and an 85 f/1.8. Still cheaper than the f/2.8 and a 1 1/3 stops faster for gym sports.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Hi Pete,<br>

This subject comes up frequently and there are certainly advantages to either choice. I have the f/2.8 IS version, and I've never once wished for the f/4.0. For dimly lit interiors, and to keep shutter speeds as high as possible for sports, you'll want all the aperture you can get. The 7D will amaze you in terms of high ISO noise handling, but a wide aperture is still necessary to get all the light you can on those 18 million pixels.</p>

[pgavalis]

<p>Thanks to all for your input. Looks like I will be eating PBJ's and noodles for a few months with the 2.8 on the horizon. Great insights. Thanks again.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Sports (especially low light) and portrait photography = f/2.8 or faster. That's my rule of thumb.</p>

<p>Depending on the situation, I normally shoot with f1.2, 1.4 and 2.8 (zoom or prime) lenses for low light, stop action and impressive bokeh.</p>

<p>F/4 lenses are usually reserved for stationary subjects.</p>

[pgavalis]

<p>Thanks, Peter. Incredibly simple and I will be adopting the same rule of thumb.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>I enjoy the 70-200 2.8 L IS, but for travel with a small compliment of lenses, I bring its sibling, the f/4 version. I shed close to two pounds and some girth with the f/4 so that they all fit happily in one reasonably hefted bag.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Peter I actually own both the F4Is and the F2.8 (non IS) for indoor sports you need the F2.8 lens. I end up shooting ice hockey at ISO 3200 quite often. Even with my 5DII I use the F2.8 lens for indoor sports. For indoor sports you do not need IS with this lens. For portraits the F2.8 lens is better if you want a shallow DOF although on the 7D even the F2.8 lens does not have a shallow enough DOF to really make the subject pop from the background ( the 85 F1.8 is a much better lens for portraits). As I said I also have the 70-200 F4 IS as well as the F2.8. I did this because for general shots the F4 lens is all you need and it is half the weight of the F2.8 lens. I find that I will take the F4 lens out a lot just in case I need it - this does not happen with the F2.8. If you want one lesn to do it all and do not mind the weight of the F2.8 lens then the 70-200 f2.8 IS is the way to go. For indoor sports and portraits the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) and the 85 F1.8 may be a good alternative - even the 50 F1.4 is good on the 7D. I would not sell the kit lens as you will lose wide angle coverage. I would also suggest the F2.8 over the F4 if your primary use is indoor sports - otherwise you will regret the loss of a stop.</p>