70-200 F4 vs F2.8
  • User avatar
    heartyfisher
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 3036
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:29 am
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Contact:

    70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by heartyfisher » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:01 am

    Help me try to decide ..

    If IQ and cost and build quality was not taken into account, what factors
    would you consider to differentiate between a 70-200 F4 vs a 70-200 F2.8.
    Why would that factor be important to you ? what are the pros and cons of
    each of these 2 lenses? what subjects suit each of these lenses. Styles of
    photography? anything else to consider? FX vs DX body?
    Moments of Light : D7K D610 18-200 150 12-24 24-70 70-200 + C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by beeb » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:17 am

    I'm assuming this question is Nikon related?
  • User avatar
    heartyfisher
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 3036
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:29 am
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by heartyfisher » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:24 am

    beeb wrote:I'm assuming this question is Nikon related?


    actually .. yes/no just in general.
    Moments of Light : D7K D610 18-200 150 12-24 24-70 70-200 + C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1355
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by Plays with Light » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:24 pm

    Well, the most attractive thing I can think of is the ability to add an extender to the 2.8 and have a not so mammoth 400mm f/5.6 with you at all times if you used a 2x TC. The 2.8's from all manufacturers, third party included get bloody good reviews these days.
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • philwillmedia
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 154
    Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:46 pm
    Location: Somewhere in the Red Centre
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by philwillmedia » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:28 pm

    Plays with Light wrote:Well, the most attractive thing I can think of is the ability to add an extender to the 2.8...

    Yep...
    You can make a f2.8 an f4 - can't go the other way.
    Regards,
    Phil

    2011 CAMS Gold Accredited Photographer | 2010 & 2011 V8 Supercars Accredited Photographer
    2009 Catch Fence Photo of the Year | 2008, 2009 & 2010 SA Rally Photographer of the Year

    http://www.freewebs.com/philwillmedia
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by Busiboy » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:43 pm

    For mine it's all about the shutter speed, if you have the light you'd shoot f4 for DOF and sharpness anyway, shooting indoor sport, get the 2.8 cause you'll want to avoid iso's at the high end of the camera capability.

    I'm more and more convinced ff gives a better result the more I pixel peep, but I can take rubbish images with any format.
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by Doug » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:50 pm

    If you don't need a fast tele sports lens for what you do and the inherit shallow DOF of longer focal lengths is enough with f4 for your purpose, then go with a lighter and less expensive f4 lens.
    The lighter weight option might make it an easier choice to take it with you for travel or the occasions where you thought you would not need it but take it anyway.

    If you think you will miss or compromise shots without f2.8 then it is a matter of deciding to what degree this will happen vs the cost, weight and bulk of the f2.8.

    The f2.8 does have versatility in its favour if you shoot a wide range of subjects and Plays with Light suggestion of combining one with a teleconverter will negate any weight penalty if you would otherwise want to have a longer lens also.

    Who would have thought one stop could raise so many complications.

    FX vs DX body?

    One stop of extra ISO is less likely to be an issue on an FX body if you chose a 70-200 f4.
    A DX will of course give more reach, I which case you might not need a longer lens or teleconverter.

    As with all these gear questions it comes down to what you shoot.
    There is never an easy answer and what ever you get, you will learn to adapt to minuses and enjoy the pluses.
  • User avatar
    heartyfisher
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 3036
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:29 am
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by heartyfisher » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:50 pm

    "but I can take rubbish images with any format." that is such a truism !

    "Who would have thought one stop could raise so many complications. " man the headache its given me !

    Thanks for the insights guys... more to chew on .......
    Moments of Light : D7K D610 18-200 150 12-24 24-70 70-200 + C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by beeb » Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:10 pm

    From a techy point of view, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is better all round, excluding size and weight. It is sharp through the zoom range and through the aperture range. The Canon 70-200 f/4 was sharp wide open, but stop it down and it was horrendous (well, at least the one I owned...). I figure if I was going to justify the extra weight of carrying round another lens, I might as well carry the one that gives better IQ and an extra stop of light (or narrower DOF) if needed.

    All that being said, these days I actually don't have either lens, as I have nearly ditched zooms entirely, and tend to just shoot primes. If I was going to buy another fast tele-zoom it'd be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (only the new 'Sports' model though). IQ is within a hair's bredth of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, and gives heaps more reach (critical for use on the full-frame/FX bodies IMO, as the 70-200's always feel a bit short IMO). The focus is a little slower than the Canon equivelents (so I presume the same would apply in comparison to the Nikon versions), but it'd still be very useable, and the initial focus can be sped up if the Sigma USB-Dock is purchased too. Also, as the others have mentioned - even with extenders IQ is still pretty reasonable, and a 2x for example would result in a 240-600 f/5.6, with very good image quality.
  • kwizikle
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 13
    Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:18 pm
    Contact:

    Re: 70-200 F4 vs F2.8

    by kwizikle » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:13 pm

    I use canon 70-200 2.8L with Canon 7D for sports photography. It is just so good, and crystal clear for all the action.

    It is also doubles as a very good portrait lens, if rather heavy!

    I'm sure the Nikon equivalent would perform as well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest