Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 VS f/4 - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/21/2005 11:02:40 PM · #1

Hey guys,

I've read a lot of good things about the 70-200 f/4. Stuff like its an amazing lens, crystal clear and such... What's the big difference in quality with the f/2.8?

I'm a big fan of Bokeh and usually go for very high f/stops for that sole purpose (i'm a 2.8 whore, basically).

Should i got with the 2.8 or 4? any thoughts?

[/url]

Baxter

Nikon D500

02/21/2005 11:12:19 PM · #2

Why not the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G. The VR will give you exta flexablity. Nikon says 3 stops I have had good luck at up to 4 hand held.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/21/2005 11:13:35 PM · #3

canon...
[/url]

Baxter

Nikon D500

02/21/2005 11:15:15 PM · #4

You are listed as using a D70. Or do you use more than one camera.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

02/21/2005 11:16:17 PM · #5

Both are sharp lenses. I just bought a Canon 2.8 USM. I don't need the IS and don't use it on the IS lens I do own. It depends on what you want to do. I know the extra stop costs extra, but I'm thinking about those shots I might have missed if I had bought the f/4 instead of the f/2.8.

Besides, if you ever compare images shot at the same f/stop with the 2 lenses you will notice an aestectic difference between them. Maybe not sharper. Just something about big glass.

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 23:18:00.

krazyivan

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

02/21/2005 11:17:35 PM · #6

Go with the f/2.8. Better overall. Good for low light situations and portrait work

Message edited by author 2005-02-21 23:19:23.

02/21/2005 11:22:36 PM · #7

Thanks a bunch guys. 400$ difference for 2.8... thinking...
[/url]

kyebosh

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

02/21/2005 11:39:18 PM · #8

i'm gonna get the F4. A lot smaller and lighter plus it's just as sharp. Plus the price difference is huge.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/22/2005 12:24:15 AM · #9

Do you intend to shoot in low light or if you can and will use an extender (I'm not a Nikon user but shoot with the Canon equivalent: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x)?

If neither is the case, the f/4 may be all you need, even for a fairly decent bokeh. I have, of course, never used the Nikon lenses, and you should take my opinion accordingly, with a lil salt.

Message edited by author 2005-02-22 00:24:49.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/22/2005 05:46:02 AM · #10

The differences between these 2 lenses are pretty much speed, weight and $400. (the 2.8 is of course larger and heavier).

Another option worth considering is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. This lens is reported to have excellent quality (not quite that of the Canon version but close), and and will allow you to get that extra stop without forking over an extra $400.

-Terry

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

02/22/2005 06:48:02 AM · #11

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Another option worth considering is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. This lens is reported to have excellent quality (not quite that of the Canon version but close), and and will allow you to get that extra stop without forking over an extra $400.

-Terry

I had the Sigma lens for my Nikon system and it was tack sharp. The features I didn't like about it were the rough EX finnish (holds dirt), the fact that it is not sealed as well as an L lens (very important when working in hostile conditions) and the fact that it is black (white keeps that big glass sooo much cooler when you have to sit in the sun for hours waiting for that shot).

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/22/2005 07:12:53 AM · #12

If you're considering the Canon versions of the 70-200 lens then I've two comments.

Personal endorsement:
You could not take my 2.8 L IS from me. It is the absolute best piece of glass I've ever held or even attached to my camera. I'll grant you that the specialty long glass (300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, etc) may be better still but for the price I love this lens. If you have the money and the room to use this lens (I use my outdoors for most of my portraiture work) then you could not get a better lens that you can use for years to come.

Technical comment:
Canon Technical Report from Sept 2001.
In this article Canon are comparing the updates of the IS version against the original f/2.8 version and they note at the bottom of Feature 1: Ultra High Image Quality that the IS version has a more circular aperture than the 2.8 throughout its range. Granted, this is only a slight difference but there is a difference. The rounder the aperture, generally the more smooth the bokeh. I can't speak to the difference between these lenses and the f/4 version although I believe I've read somewhere that its not as round an aperture as even the f/2.8 (or perhaps its just not as consistently round throughout its aperture range).

My conclusion:
For this focal length, I think the Canon brand outperforms any other brand I've seen shot but that's just my opinion. Get what you can afford and I don't think you'll be disappointed. The goal is to get you out there pushing that shutter release button and whether you end up with the 4, 2.8 or 2.8 IS version I think you'll be thrilled with this lens.

Contrary to some concerned inquiries, I do not actually sleep with this lens . . . often.

Thanks to EddyG for providing this link in a previous post regarding this question.

Kev