| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/26/2005 04:22:41 PM · #1 |
(the technical aspects only please. Not.... if your gonna spend the money bla bla bla....) would you choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 over the 70-200mm f/4.0. Is one that much better than the other to justify doubling the price?
Please, also give some examples of a situation were one would out perform the other.
I'm gonna buy one of these and I'm having a hard time rationalizing the price difference.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2005 04:24:32 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
(the technical aspects only please. Not.... if your gonna spend the money bla bla bla....) would you choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 over the 70-200mm f/4.0. Is one that much better than the other to justify doubling the price?
Please, also give some examples of a situation were one would out perform the other.
I'm gonna buy one of these and I'm having a hard time rationalizing the price difference. |
2.8 wayyy more versatile in lower light. you will be working with faster shutter speeds all around, less chance of blur and overall sharper images.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2005 04:30:55 PM · #3 |
I have played with both and the images are great with both lenses so it seems to me the balance is a faster lens or a lighter lens. The arguments I have heard for going with the 2.8 despite the low noise sensors that can get you shooting at 1600iso without tons of noise are
1. Faster is still better
2. more light in means faster focusing and less hunting to try to resolve a bird in flight, or a player headed for the basket.
3. more light in means more light throught the oh so small viewer, and who couln't use a better view while trying to find the perfect monent. |
|
|
|
12/26/2005 04:36:20 PM · #4 |
I have the 70-200L f2.8 IS and I've tried the f4 model, I wouldn't want to switch the f2.8 is way faster, it's very heavy so it's not a walkaround lens like the f4, but it outperforms the f4 in all action, birds, sports, indoor, and just about everything you could think of...
if you got the money, get the 2.8
|
|
|
|
12/26/2005 04:36:56 PM · #5 |
I keep reading over and over how the focusing sensors are not only faster but more accurate on the canon cameras when used with a f/2.8 or faster lens... it makes me wish all of my lenses were f/2.8 or faster.
Plus, the sweet spot on a lens (best quality in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc) is usually something like 2 stops down from wide open. So... would you rather start at f/2.8 and close down two stops for the best photo, or start at f/4 and close down two stops? Again, it makes me wish all of my lenses were f/2.8 or faster.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2005 05:17:46 PM · #6 |
I made that decision in favor of the f/4.0. I do nearly all my work on a tripod anyway, so speed was not an issue for me. The f/4.0 is much lighter and easier to carry around, which is a bonus, and uses a smaller filter, which is a plus cost-wise.
If I'd had the budget for it I'd probably have gotten the f/2.8 anyway, just for the extra stop of illumination and the faster focusing that comes with that in low light, but I have no complaints regarding my f/4.0 version. It's a remarkably sharp lens. I think it's just as sharp at f/5.6 as the 2.8 version is at 5.6, so that doesn't seem to be a factor.
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 07:16:37 PM EDT.
