70-200 f/2.8L vs 70-200 f/4L: Bokeh and Hand-hold-ability

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Simply put, the bokeh is better. I've used both, and I own a 2.8. While it is heavy, I carry it around all day long while I'm shooting weddings, and I wouldn't trade it for the f4 for anything. Simply put the images are far far far better, and that makes it worth the weight.</p>

<p>Just my opinion. :-) </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The bokeh of the 70-200mm f4 is very smooth and mostly pleasantly round at moderate apertures. And the IS version improves image quality significantly.</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f4 IS has the best picture quality overall (including resolution and color through the range of apertures) amongst the four older 70-200mm ( 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 f4 non-IS, 70-200 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f2.8 non-IS).</p>

<p>I've tested all of them and I comfortably recommend the 70-200mm f4 IS to everyone. </p>

<p>The 70-200mm f4 IS is the jewel of all zooms and it is a bargain at $1,200. The only one that rivals it is the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS II - but it is $2,300.</p>

<p> </p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>@ David Stephens</p>

<p>70-200 f/2.8L IS II + Canon Extender 2x III would be the perfect combination, except for my pockets ;-)</p>

<p>@ Daniel Lee Taylor</p>

<p>Buying the 85mm f/1.8 and keeping the 70-200 f/4L is the ideia which is struggling with buying the 70-200 f/2.8L</p>

<p>@ J. Harrington</p>

<p>Thank you for the samples.</p>

<p>@ G Dan Mitchell</p>

<p>The 85mm f/1.8 prime is a strong candidate for my next lens.</p>

<p>@ Mike Hitchen</p>

<p>I may have phrased my question in a less than perfect way. I simply wanted to know if I could obtain a better bokeh by changing this factor, moving from a f/4L lens (@ f/4) to a f/2.8L (@ f/2.8). Obviously, I can not use f/2.8 on my f/4L lens, that's why I am thinking about buying the f/2.8L, but if changing the only the apperture will not improve my bokeh that much, than I might consider other options (the 85mm f/1.8, for example).</p>

<p>Buying the f/2.8L testing it and selling it if it does not fit my needs is another option that I am considering.</p>

<p>It is really a tough decision.</p>

<p>@ Philip Wilson<br>

<br />Thank you for the suggestions. I use all my lenses with their hoods.</p>

<p>@ Marcus Ian</p>

<p>Thank you for your opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_janes]

<p>Mr. Mitchell (and others too) mentioned the special relationship between bokeh and a given lens' optical formula.<br /> A very fine technical paper on the subject was written by Harold Merklinger. In it he effectively describes this "signature" quality of a lens, its rendering of out-of-focus objects, the tendency to soften or harden blurred edges. Merklinger goes further in demonstrating how this rendering can change depending on whether the OOF subject / area is in front of or behind the plane of focus. The point is also made that the shape of these OOF subjects / areas can either complement or interfere with a lens' bokeh "signature" and this is where a photographer can visibly influence the end result. <br>

It's a good work, well written and illustrated.</p>

[rintintin]

<p>Considering your desire to take the rig trekking, I'd second the f/4L recommendation. I take mine backpacking all the time, and in addition to the considerable weight savings, there's the issue of bulk. The f/4 works for me hanging on my side or on a chest harness while backpacking, while the f/2.8 is just too bulky. The 85 f/1.8 is a wonderful portrait lens, too, so you'd not be losing anything at all there. You've gotten several excellent suggestions regarding bokeh, and I'd add one more--consult a DOF calculator for your camera body/lens/distance combos. I'd bet you'll find that your bokeh dissatisfaction issues are due to a background that is too close to your subject.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>If you shoot crop then consider buying a full-frame body. That'll give you shallower DOF with your current lenses.</p>

<p>It's a cost + weight comparable option, compared to buying a 70-200/2.8</p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>@ Arie</p>

<p>I am waiting for the 5D mk III.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Why? What is it about the 5D2 that would limit you?</p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>@ Arie</p>

<p>Nothing about the 5D2 would limit me, but since it seems to be at the end of its product cycle and a new 5D3 seems to be coming, I prefer to wait and buy a just released product, with new features to buying a product which will be outdated soon. I agree that the 5D2 is a fine camera and I would not use all of its resources before the 5D3 is release, but it is not inexpensive and it is already a few years old, so I will wait for the new one.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>I have the f4, a friend has the 2.8. The 2.8 feels a whole lot heavier to me just from picking up one in each hand. I wouldn't want the 2.8 for that reason (either does he, he's selling it and getting the f4 because of the weight). But I do landscape, still life, and architecture almost exclusively. So my problem is usually getting enough depth of field, not having too much. But I could see someone who did sports, portraits, etc. opting for the 2.8 because of the shallower depth of field.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>Your picture of the flower is very beautiful. My first picture with the 70-200 f/4L is similiar to this one in terms of bokeh, but sometimes (specially with larger subjects, farther from the camera), I could not achieve a similar bokeh and I was wondering if that was because of the larger DoF of the f/4L when focused on a distant subject @ f/4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your problem is with subjects further away from a new fast aperture lens probably will not help much. As the subject gets closer to the infinity focus distance of the lens the DOF increase tremendously making it difficult to impossible to get the effect you want. </p>

<p>If the 70-200 couldn't do it at 200mm it is unlikely that the 85mm lens will solve the problem. The reason for that is that at 85mm at F4 will have more depth of field than the 70-200F4 will at 200mm. Yes the extra 2stops of F1.8 will help but there is a good chance that it won't be enough to get the Boken you want.</p>

<p>i suggest you re-read the suggestsions from G Dan Mitchell:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are several factors that can affect the quality of the bokeh:</p>

<ul>

<li>The aperture - larger apertures shrink the DOF and make subjects behind/before the focal plane appear more OOF.</li>

<li>The focal length - longer focal lengths have the effect of shrinking the DOF, for several reasons.</li>

<li>Camera to subject distance - the closer you are the narrower the DOF</li>

<li>Subject to background distance - the greater this is the more OOF the background will be.</li>

<li>The ability of the lens to produce smooth out of focus image - somewhat affected by number of aperture blades and their shape, along with other factors.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>If your subject is distant and you cannot get closer an 85 F1.8 lens won't help. Instead you need a longer focal length lens such as a 300F4 or 100-400 F4 to F5.6. Lets assum your subject is 20 feet away and the lens is wid open. Then for the following lenses your depth of field is </p>

<ul>

<li>85mm F1.8 depth of field is 1.13Ft</li>

<li>70-200mm at 200mm F4 depth of field is 0.45Ft</li>

<li>300mm F4 depth of field is 0.2Ft</li>

<li>100-400mm at 400mm F5.6 depth of field is 0.15Ft</li>

</ul>

<p>Notice the DOF of the 85mm at F1.8 is greater than that of the others. Even though the slow F5.6 aperture of the 100-400 at 400mm, it still gives you the narrowest DOF. So for narrow DOF Bokeh the 85mm may not be the best choice. Yes it is the lightest and it has a fastest aperture but it won't give your a narrow DOF unless you get close to the subject. You might want to play with this on line <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">DOF calculator</a>.</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>This DOF scenario above is not useful. You would never maintain a shooting distance of 20 feet, or any number of feet, with this wide range of lenses. Of all those listed, for a head and shoulders shot, the 85/1.8 will give the least depth of field. Go back through your DOF calculator with a subject height of say, two feet, filling your frame for each lens and each maximum aperture.</p>

<p>As others have already recommended if you really want to isolate your subject then keep your zoom and add a fast prime. 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.2, 85/1.8, 135/2, or at the ridiculous end the 200/1.8, or 200/2. Of course the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are awesome but too silly just for still portraits.</p>

<p>No, you don't need IS, even with a converter, as long as you have enough light/ISO for 1/250 to 1/500 to freeze both the camera and the subject. </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Going by that logic you should not buy a 70-200/2.8 IS mk2. I'd wait for the 70-200/2.8 IS mk3.</p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>@ Steven F</p>

<p>Thank you for the various DoF calculations and the link for the DoF Calculator (it is better than the one I am used to). My subjects are not distant, I usually shoot from a 8-10 feet distance. I will try to calculate which lens/appeture combination is better for me.</p>

<p>@ John Crowe</p>

<p>Thank you for the primes recommendations. I currently own 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and I am planning to add the 85 f/1.8 to the set.</p>

<p>@ Arie</p>

<p>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a new product. It was released in march 2010 to replace a product released in september 2001. I do not expect another upgrade soon.</p>

<p>The 5D mark II was release in november 2008 to replace a product (5D) release in october 2005, so we might expect an upgrade soon.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>There's also the quality of the bokeh which apparently hasn't been addressed, @f4, the bokeh is often a bit jaggedy (which catches the eye) where as at f2.8 the same image will have a higher quality bokeh. This is especially noticeable in backgrounds with high contrast. </p>

<p>The first image in the thread (posted by Nathan) highlights this tendency, if you see the area to the right of the beak, the green/blue is layered, (almost like you'd see reflecting off moving water) at f2.8, that background (I'd predict, impossible to prove since the hummingbird has flown away :-) ) should be a much more mellow blend from green to blue, as opposed to the 'swirled' effect f4 gives.</p>