Buying L Lenses... f/4.0 vs. f/2.8

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/09/2005 12:24:46 PM · #1

I'm looking to possibly by some lenses real quick for a trip i'm taking this weekend and need some advise as to the 4 vs. 2.8 issue when it comes to pricing.

I want L lenses, but the 2.8's are giving me sticker shock. I want a wide angle and a 200mm telephoto... and I can get the 17-40mm L f/4 and the 70-200mm L f/4 for the same price as a single 16-35mm L f/2.8.

I really want a wide angle lens for my trip this weekend (Grand Teton and Yellowstone and then from there to Florida for the rest of next week)... but i'm having doubts as to the necessity of the 2.8 over the 4 at these prices and my experience.

I'm thinking possibly going with the 4's, getting both lenses and then down the road upgrading and either selling these or giving them to my wife (she is going to want her own camera soon since this 20D is technically hers and I made off with it... LOL) along with a new camera for her.

Anyone have any advise? Thoughts? Suggestions?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

05/09/2005 12:28:11 PM · #2

For low light shots the faster the lens the better however IS on a slower lens may also do the trick.

Renting a lens may be an option for the weekend trip.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/09/2005 12:30:19 PM · #3

Unfortunately I don't know anywhere around here where I can rent lenses. The camera stores around here (Hampton Roads area of Virginia) all suck.

TrollMan

Fujifilm X-T4

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4

05/09/2005 12:38:44 PM · #4

Originally posted by sage:

Anyone have any advise? Thoughts? Suggestions?

My best suggestion: Buy the 2 f/4 lenses. Then sell them to your wife and use the money for a 2.8... then you have all of them in the family! :)

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/09/2005 12:39:26 PM · #5

I feel for you as far as renting lenses is concerned.

It is really tough to say weather the f/2.8�s or f/4 would be best for you. You sure do pay a huge premium for the extra stop. If you are doing landscape photography (certainly not my strongest area) I would guess you will be stopping down as much as possible and the f/2.8 wouldn�t really be necessary.

In the 70-200, f/2.8 might be more useful. Lots of people use this lens to shoot sports and portraits... For the applications the extra stop can be very useful. I don�t really know what you will be doing with the 70-200 so I can�t really say one way or the other.

The 70-200 f/4 is a lot lighter and significantly smaller than the f/2.8 so that might be worth considering also. Another idea might be to go with a 200mm f/2.8L II.

Tom

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/09/2005 12:44:00 PM · #6

If you are going to be using the wide angle for landscape photography, then you won't be using the f2.8 due to it's extremely narrow DOF. I can't see any advantage of such a narroe DOF on a wide angle lens. IS will give the advantage of a bit more DOF so more is in focus. Think what will you be photographing, & will the lens do the job.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/09/2005 12:44:39 PM · #7

Originally posted by ovenbird:

Probably wouldn't be worth renting anyway, i'll be gone for about 10 days and the rental price for that amount of time would probably be better put to use purchasing...

I like to do landscape, outdoor and wildlife photography. With the zoom I would want to do wildlife and some sports. Of course everything would be used for doing family photos and such.

I'm thinking for most of the landscape photography the f/4 would suffice but the zoom sounds like the 2.8 would be the way to go.

Message edited by author 2005-05-09 12:45:45.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/09/2005 12:46:29 PM · #8

on the short zoom, you could still hand hold down to like 1/50 of a second, so perhaps the f4 would be fine, but the long zoom might be where you wish you had the extra stop.

i owned the 70-200mm f4 ... awesome lens, very sharp ... but f4 is limiting (not to mention, i didn't think is was long enough, and adding a tc to an f4 made it that much slower)

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/09/2005 12:54:37 PM · #9

I haven�t been out to Grand Teton or Yellowstone in years but if my memory serves me well, you might want longer than a 200mm telephoto lens. Maybe something like a 300mm f/4 or even 100-400 IS would be better for wildlife shots. I do remember getting very close to moose and bison that a 70-200 would be great for.

I am jealous of your trip!

Have fun,

Tom

Sony 16-35mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE ZA OSS Lens

05/09/2005 01:01:08 PM · #10

Originally posted by ovenbird:

Thanks, yea the other lens I want to get eventually is the 100-400mm L. But that won't be happening before this trip. Looks like I may just get the 17-40mm L f/4 for now. I have an older 75-300mm NON-L lens I can use for the time being.

bryanbrazil

Sony Alpha a7R III

05/09/2005 01:09:57 PM · #11

I went with the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L with a 1.4x teleconverter. This setup works great, but there are times 280mm at f5.6 is just too slow. At some point, I plan to add the 70-200 f2.8L and the 300 f4L. I'll probably never need a faster wideangle, though.