| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2009 03:22:32 PM · #1 |
| Im trying to purchase my first L-series lens and was wondering if the difference is worth buying the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L or buying the cheaper F4L model? I'm not a proffesional, i am mainly a newbie photography hobbiest, so I do not need the top of the line hardware. However, I do want to be able to take quality photographs. If you recommened a different L-series lens, that would help also. Thanks |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:31:35 PM · #2 |
Both lenses are remarkable performers.
You just need to decide if you need the extra F-stop for low light situations. And of course the extra $$$ for that one extra stop.
I do recommend you get the IS version of either one. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:32:59 PM · #3 |
The f/4L is one of the great buys in the lens world. Absolutely outstanding in every respect. The f/2.8L is also a great lens, but considerably pricier. Also, the 2.8 is a LOT heavier than the 4, a real consideration if you're packing gear around on your back. You also get to choose between IS (Image Stability) and non-IS versions of each. If you're primarily going to be hand-holding, IS is probably worth the extra bucks. If you're a tripod shooter (like me) then IS is not really a big deal. Still, I'd rather have the f/4L IS than the non-IS f/2.8L myself, just for the relatively few times I've been disappointed when grabbing a quick exposure on the fly in marginal light conditions; others might not agree.
But the plain-vanilla f/4L 70-200mm is just an outstanding value in high quality optics.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:38:29 PM · #4 |
Another thing to consider is the weight.
From reading discussion boards, some move back to the f4 because of the size and weight. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 03:45:19 PM · #5 |
| Thank you all for your replies. It's helping a lot in my decision and leaning towards the F4L |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 04:02:59 PM · #6 |
| The 70-200L f/4 was my first quality lens and I loved it. I still believe it's probably Canon's best bang for the buck. The only reason I sold it and upgraded to the 2.8 IS version was for wedding work, I really needed the extra stop and the IS is pretty amazing. Also, since the lenses hold a pretty decent value you can turn around and sell the lens for most of what you paid for it new if you ever decide to upgrade. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 04:05:42 PM · #7 |
Keep in mind your tripod and it's head strength. My 2.8L came with a tripod collar, whereas the 4.0L does not (from what I hear). If you have a flimsy tripod or a week ball head, then mounting the tripod directly to the camera body may be a little unstable and produce a less solid platform.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 16:16:46.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 04:13:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Photologist:
Keep in mind your tripod and it's head strength. My 2.8L came with a tripod collar, whereas the 4.0L does not (from what I hear). If you have a flimsy tripod, then mounting the tripod directly to the camera body may be a little unstable and produce a less solid platform. |
You can buy a collar for the f/4L; I did. It's not cheap (100-odd dollars) but well worth it. Lens is still a lot cheaper than the f/2.8L even after adding the collar.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 04:26:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Photologist:
Keep in mind your tripod and it's head strength. My 2.8L came with a tripod collar, whereas the 4.0L does not (from what I hear). If you have a flimsy tripod, then mounting the tripod directly to the camera body may be a little unstable and produce a less solid platform. |
You can buy a collar for the f/4L; I did. It's not cheap (100-odd dollars) but well worth it. Lens is still a lot cheaper than the f/2.8L even after adding the collar. |
The 4.0L is much lighter, as already mentioned. How much lighter?
2.8L - 3.5 pounds/3.2 without collar (1.6 kg/1.45 kg)
4.0L - 1.56 pounds (708 g)
Still, I chose the 2.8 because I needed the additional light produced by it. I didn't want to buy the 4.0, only to one day second-guess myself when trying to shoot those darker scenes.
Also, if you plan on using the Canon 1.4x or 2.0 extender (teleconverter), you will lose a stop (or two). On my 2.8, I can increase its reach and still shoot at f/4 (with my 1.4x ext). Using that extender on the 4.0 will only get you f/5.6 at best.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:12:04 PM · #10 |
| is the f/4 weather sealed like the 2.8? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:34:54 PM · #11 |
the F4 is a great lens, but the f2.8 non-IS is fantastic!! Obviously adding the IS version costs money, but I have shot using the non-IS 2.8 and its awesome.
But yes, the F4 is great value for money - sharp, contrasty, light, well made.... L! |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:46:30 PM · #12 |
These days with ISOs going the way they are going, I'm starting to think f/4 is really pretty decent. Now, I'm a landscape guy so I typically don't need fast shutter speeds, but when shooting last weeks Oregon game with my 300mm f/4L at night I was getting speeds of 1/500th on ISO 3200-6400.
Having that extra stop is always nice, but it's a huge cost for that one stop. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:18:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These days with ISOs going the way they are going, I'm starting to think f/4 is really pretty decent. Now, I'm a landscape guy so I typically don't need fast shutter speeds, but when shooting last weeks Oregon game with my 300mm f/4L at night I was getting speeds of 1/500th on ISO 3200-6400.
Having that extra stop is always nice, but it's a huge cost for that one stop. |
I have shot sporting events at night at stadiums and while 1/500 sec shutter speeds will stop most of the action, generally you'll want 1/1000+ to freeze the action. Nonetheless, it is difficult at best to generalize what speeds one needs for sporting events because other (non-camera) factors are involved. For example, the angle of the action/movement. If the subject is moving toward (or away) from you then a lower shutter speeds will suffice. If the subject is moving across your plane of view at 90 degrees or similar, then a faster speed is required.
So, Hugo, part of your decision depends on what you want to shoot now AND in the future.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:56:53 PM · #14 |
Good point Photologist. I guess my point is who would have thought you could get a good shot at 1/500th with a f/4 lens at night? ISO noise control is only getting better. In the film days who would have even heard of such an exotic beast as ISO 6400 film which could give you good results for sports photography.
But you are correct and I am by no means a sports photog. I was pushing to as fast a speed as I could get with my f/4, but of course the guys next to me had their giant 2.8s on the monopod. Still, who was going to get out of the way faster when the RB comes barrelling our way? :P |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:49:30 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the guys next to me had their giant 2.8s on the monopod. Still, who was going to get out of the way faster when the RB comes barrelling our way? :P |
Canon is coming out with an airbag for these lenses. It's kinda like a ring-light, but it's a ring-bag! LOL! When a RB or a BB player is diving toward you, your sudden jerk to get out of the way triggers the airbag and protects your lens (and you). :-D
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:53:41 PM · #16 |
Haha. I'd LOVE to see that! A lot of sports photogs I've seen come with their own airbag, if you get my drift...
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 20:54:01. |
|
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: 06/15/2025 02:20:08 PM EDT.
