70-200mm Question! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/06/2004 01:17:04 PM · #1

I know that everyone raves about the f/2.8 version of this lens,
I was wondering if the f/4.0 version is worth it for the poor guy?
Any thoughts?

crabappl3

04/06/2004 01:28:53 PM · #2

I believe that Jacko has this lens. He raves about it. Here's his page with his equipement (clean link ladies... calm down!)Jacko's Equipment

-danny

Originally posted by superdave_909:

I know that everyone raves about the f/2.8 version of this lens,
I was wondering if the f/4.0 version is worth it for the poor guy?
Any thoughts?

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/06/2004 01:31:02 PM · #3

I bought 200 mm F2.8 mm primepipe for 600 $ and very happy with that.
With 2 X tele gives me very sharp 640 mm at f5.6 for bargain price.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/06/2004 01:33:02 PM · #4

Originally posted by superdave_909:

I know that everyone raves about the f/2.8 version of this lens,
I was wondering if the f/4.0 version is worth it for the poor guy?
Any thoughts?

Well, a poor guy wouldn't be able to afford even the f/4.0 L. ;-)
I'm sure it's worth it. The f/2.8 is preferable in low light conditions, of course, but also because it more readily renders a nice blurry background than a lens with a lower aperture rating.

IS is another price factor and matter to consider.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/06/2004 01:42:32 PM · #5

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Well, a poor guy wouldn't be able to afford even the f/4.0 L. ;-)

I know I'm still saving my pennies!

agwright

Canon EOS-20D

04/06/2004 01:50:01 PM · #6

i got the F4 version and I love it

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=65209

was taken with it.

Jason

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

04/06/2004 01:56:12 PM · #7

I have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and absoluetly love it!

I regulary use it with a 1.4 teleconverter and don't even notice that it's on there, image quality is the same, no focusing hunts... its just ... just... perfect!

EddyG

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

04/06/2004 01:57:50 PM · #8

The Canon 70-200/4 is a stunning lens. If you don't need the bigger aperture of the 2.8 "big brother", then save some money and some weight and get the f/4... you will not be disappointed by this stellar lens. It is one of the best zooms Canon makes, and a bargain for the price. =]

04/06/2004 02:00:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by agwright:

i got the F4 version and I love it

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=65209

was taken with it.

Nice pic thanks for sharing

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/06/2004 02:04:28 PM · #10

Originally posted by EddyG:

This is the info that I was really looking for! Now just waiting for the piggy bank to fatten up a bit!:D
On a side note Eddy I wanted to thank you for the interpolation actions
that you gave me a link to a while back. I have been using them portraits of my daughter and the results are fantastic! I'll post a couple later when I get home to show you.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/06/2004 02:44:58 PM · #11

I have the f4 version, too, and find it to be excellent in every way. The great ISO performance of the 10D/300D makes it very useful. It's half the price and a third of the weight for one stop. Optically they're identical. I wouldn't mind having the 2.8 version sometimes, but when you consider how small and light the f4 version is, I don't think I'd want to carry the 2.8 as much.

04/06/2004 02:56:23 PM · #12

when you use these lenses (with out IS) do you find it
difficult to hand hold when using an extender?

nborton

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/06/2004 04:32:40 PM · #13

i have the f4 also. i would say that unless you are shooting a ton of indoor or lowlight shots the extra stop is not worth the extra money if you are already low on cash. also with the ability to switch ISOs on the fly, the extra stop can be gained by switching to a higher ISO. some people say they need IS, but there are such things as tripods. optically the f4 is no different than the f2.8, and in some tests higher quality than the IS version (in reality probably not even worth the debate).

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

04/06/2004 04:46:34 PM · #14

I have used lots of copies of each version and my conclusion is that the f/4L version is ever so slightly sharper than the f/2.8L which is ever so slightly sharper than the f/2.8L IS version. The difference is really insignificant though. If you can get by with f/4 then I say go for it without any hesitation.

Greg

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/06/2004 04:47:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by dadas115:

Any idea which is sharper at f8 ?

BrennanOB

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/06/2004 05:11:22 PM · #16

The folks who have the f4 belive that the f4 is a sharper lens. Of course the 2.8 folk say there is no difference in sharpness, but will admit that their is more costly and heavier. Most of the folks who went with the f4 will say that it was the weight that swayed their decision not the money

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/06/2004 05:17:24 PM · #17

My decision was based on money all the way - or more specifically value. I value having the money in the bank.

For me, for the type of stuff I shoot, I didn't need the extra stop of the 2.8 and didn't care about the extra weight and cost for the IS as I often use a tripod or am shooting in reasonable light with this lens.

If I was going to be shooting sports or something I'd get the 2.8 in a flash - the F4 is really slower than I'd like, especially if you add a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter, you'll have a hard time getting a decently wide aperture ( 5.6 or 8.0 minimum respectively with the F4 and teles) and will have a harder time getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop action. IS is also a real boon in these sorts of situations, though again doesn't help with stopping action - but the 2.8 would.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/06/2004 05:26:50 PM · #18

Modest photographer by day, Obviousman by night...

The point being? It was mainly the money for me, but after seeing the 2.8 version over mine, I'm perfectly happy with the 4.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

04/06/2004 05:26:54 PM · #19

Originally posted by dadas115:

I have both, but have never tested with the same shot. I find it hard to believe that the f4 is sharper, but yo unever know. Here is the main difference between the "IS" version and the non "IS" version:

Other improvements include a reduced minimum focusing distance of 1.4m/4.6ft., a newly developed aperture diaphragm that remains virtually circular from f/2.8 to f/5.6 for enhanced image quality, and a revised AF drive circuit and autofocusing algorithm for superior AF speed when used with current high-end EOS SLRs.

Additionally, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM features weather-resistant construction in the mount area, switch panel, zoom ring and focusing ring to prevent water and dust from reaching the inside of the lens. This design philosophy matches the performance of the EOS-1V professional camera and makes the new lens usable in a wider range of adverse shooting conditions.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/06/2004 05:32:28 PM · #20

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by dadas115:
I have used lots of copies of each version and my conclusion is that the f/4L version is ever so slightly sharper than the f/2.8L which is ever so slightly sharper than the f/2.8L IS version. The difference is really insignificant though. If you can get by with f/4 then I say go for it without any hesitation.

Greg

I have both, but have never tested with the same shot. I find it hard to believe that the f4 is sharper, but yo unever know.

From what I've seen on MTF charts, its basically identical - there is a marginal difference, with the F2.8 being sharper than the f4 at a mid range (135mm) at f4, and the f4 being slightly better at 200mm at F4, but basically identical at f8, with the F4L being slightly sharper at the 70mm end. Though these differences are in the 100ths of a point.

paganini