Canon EF 70-200mm L IS F2.8 vs F4

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Folks,

For my 5D, I am about to buy one of these two lenses. My current lenses are: Sigma 12-24mm, EF 24-105mm L IS F4 and EF 50mm F1.8.

Under ideal circumstances, I'd like to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm L IS F2.8 but the price of it is almost the double of the price of the F4.

F4 seems to be a very sharp lens, IS compensation is up tp 3.5-4 stops.
It is also lighter in weight, it won't break one's back.

F2.8 is as sharp (at least when used at F4), IS compensation is aound 3 stops.
It is heavier but I can share my CircPol filter from the 24-105 (77mm) and don't need to buy a tripod mount ring like in the case of F4.

And ovbiously the two most important advantages:
1) One stop wider aperture resulting in better bokeh
2) One stop faster shutter speed

Please help me make up my mind:
Is the 2.8 worth the extra 650 Euro (some 900 US $) or are we just splitting hairs here?

Also, should I buy the 1.4x TC along with these lenses?

Cheers,

[Don Lashier]

Hi Cem,

I've got the f4 and I love it. It's light enough that you don't need the tripod ring. For daytime outdoor use I think that f4 is plenty, but there are occasions when I wish I had the f2.8 either for shallow DOF or for indoor low-light situations. Some day I may get the f2.8 but almost definitely will not get rid of the f4 as it's just so much lighter and easier to pack around when in the field.

- DL

[Ron Morse]

I had the f/4 and sold it to get the 2.8 IS. I thought that I needed the IS for horse shows. Turned out that the camera focus was way off. I believe that the f/4 took just as sharp pictures as the 2.8 IS and was a lot lighter. With that said their are times that the 2.8 IS will get good shots where the f/4 would really struggle.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Cem,

I have the f4 and the 2.8 IS. The f4 is every bit as sharp if not sharper than the 2.8L and can be used wide open. It's so light and I can put it in my pants pocket, LOL!

I need the 2.8 more for wedding to get focus in the dim light of an even dinner, even though I'm using flash. However, most work can be done with the f4.0

I keep thinking of selling the f4. I'll do it when I need to buy a new LF camera or something like that!

Asher

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Cem,

It depends a bit on your use. For working in very dim environments the extra stop of the f/2.8 will help in getting faster focus, but for better optical performance you'll need to stop it down to f/4.0, where as the f/4.0 is already sharp wide open (although it vignettes a little at f/4.0 on a FF sensor, solvable in postprocessing).

I decided for getting the f/4.0 because I wanted a (much) lighter/compact lens for travel, so the price difference was ' just' a bonus. The IS performance is phenomenal. It works fine combined with the 1.4x Extender II, although focus speed will suffer a little bit. I don't know how fast it focuses on a 5D, but on my 1Ds2 it's plenty fast enough.

Bart

[Don Lashier]

Yes, I forgot about the extender. Definitely get the 1.4 extender - these lenses are so sharp that the extender takes IQ down to only "ordinary" L lenses like the 24-70.

- DL

[Kathy Rappaport]

Some of the best images I've taken were with my 70-200 2.8 - sharp as a tack. Beautiful bokeh and I have no weight complaints about it on my 5D. I do use a hand strap when I shoot.

[Nicolas Claris]

Bonjour Cem
When you buy a lens, it is not like a digital body… it will last for years…

Go to the ƒ2.8, outstanding, and with the 1.4 Extender, You'll appreciate the extra stop, BTW do consider a monopod too, you'll get more keepers!

This lens is magnificient! (see here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=35960&postcount=17))

[Cem_Usakligil]

Firstly, thanks to everybody for the good advice you’ve given.

Until I came across the posts of Kathy and Nicolas (in reading order) I was pretty much convinced that I should have the F4 IS. Nicolas knows exactly which chords to strike, he's made me start doubting again.

Seriously, how much difference it will make if have to focus in low light? I do not do weddings, but I do shoot in low light quite often. Also, I can always focus manually if AF fails, can't I? BTW, I use CF4-3 and am used to manually adjusting the focus after acquiring the AF with the * button first.

The low focus AF performance would be the only real reason for me to go to F2.8 IS; I guess.
And also the fact that it looks more macho <LOL>

Cheers,

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Seriously, how much difference it will make if have to focus in low light? I do not do weddings, but I do shoot in low light quite often.

Well, if that and the use of an extender is the main purpose, go for the f/2.8. If portability is important, since the difference in size and weight is considerable(!), go for the f/4.0 . That's my condensed take on the dilemma.

Bart

[Nicolas Claris]

Once you'll have reached 200 mm, you'll want more… then extender (1.4 has better IQ than 2) then the extra stop will be welcome (you loose one stop with the extender 1.4)…

guitars, guitars, violin, and violoncellos chords…

[Ray West]

Hi Cem,

If you are using a tripod, why do you need the is f2.8 ? Do they still make the non is version? May not be worth the saving, to you, but less moving bits 'to go wrong'.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Once you'll have reached 200 mm, you'll want more…

Yes, I want a 500mm http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif (already have the extenders).

Bart

[Nicolas Claris]

Sorry Bart

mine is not for sale!

[Ralph Eisenberg]

I've got the 70-200/2.8 IS and it is a very fine zoom, although with the 1Ds2 and some other lenses in my bag, I find it adds a lot of weight. For that reason, I've been thinking of also getting the 70-200/4 IS, for times when low-light will not be a primary consideration. The difference in weight is considerable, and should be taken into account for the long term. As was observed before, digital camera bodies may be more or less short term affairs, but good lenses are a long term commitment.

[Tim Armes]

Hi Cem,

If you are using a tripod, why do you need the is f2.8 ?

Ray

Depth of field of course!

Cem,

I'll say this: if you don't know which to go for, then you probably don't need 2.8 today, because if the creative uses of wide apertures were important to your style of photography then you wouldn't need to ask the question.

Of course, we all evolve photographically, and lenses are a big investment, so you should ask yourself this question: will you want 2.8 in the future? Will you need or want less depth of field?

Personally I chose to buy an 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.0 over the 70-200mm; for me, having a wide aperture is far more important that having the practicality of a zoom. The added bonus is that the primes are sharper too (although the 70-200 is clearly excellent in this area).

Tim

[Marian Howell]

hi cem! i've got a 5d and the f/2.8IS plus happen to have been playing with an f/4 non-IS for the last few months. while i routinely shoot hand holding a 300 f/2.8 IS and am not concerned by the weight diffeerence as a deal breaker, i will say that the old f/4 really can be stuffed in a pocket as asher says! and this has come in handy on occasion. i use it exclusively for landscapes though. i wouldn't worry about a tripod ring either, as don says you don't need one. i put it up in the tripod in a bh55 with the camera plate and have no drooping issues. and a friend recently got the old non-IS f/2.8 for his 1ds2 and enjoys it for landscapes and likes the savings. however, i still use the 2.8 for anything low light or moderately active. you do shoot a lot in low light. additionally as nicolas says, the 1.4 extender over the 2.0 because of IQ works like a charm on the 2.8, and i used it alot until i gave in to the siren call of the 300 LOL! nicolas is so right about that!!
if you can, i would get the 2.8IS and use it for a while. if you find you are not taking advantage of it enough, it's resale value stays pretty high.
enjoy this delicious dilemma...

[Ray West]

Hi Tim,

Although it may have not been clear in my previous cryptic question, I was asking why do you need _is_ f2.8 with a tripod. When I last looked, there was a non 'image stabilised' version available, which iirc was nearer the f4 price. 'is' can be an unnecessary complication.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim,

Although it may have not been clear in my previous cryptic question, I was asking why do you need _is_ f2.8 with a tripod. When I last looked, there was a non 'image stabilised' version available, which iirc was nearer the f4 price. 'is' can be an unnecessary complication.

Best wishes,

Ray


Quite so, I should have read your question more attentively. That said, it's probably clearer to write "2.8 IS" than "is 2.8" - my mind skipped over the "is" as a misplaced word, especially since it came before the aperture. Of course, had I not ignored the rest of the sentence I wouldn't have made the mistake!

Anyhow, you pose a good question - f/4 IS or f/2.8 non IS. Here are the main points:

1) The f/2.8 gives you one extra stop of hand-holding possibility, but at the cost of depth of field, whereas the 4.0 gives you 3 stops of hand-holding possibility at any aperture. Winner: f/4.

2) The f/2.8 gives you one extra stop of light in darkened conditions when photographing moving subjects. The f/4 doesn't. Winner: f/2.8.

3) The f/4 is lighter and smaller. Winner f/4.

4) The wider aperture of the f/2.8 can offer more creative possibilities, especially when taking portraits. Winner: f/2.8.

5) The f/2.8 has better bokeh (creaminess of the blurred areas). Winner: f/2.8.

Conclusion: look at your personal requirements and buy what you need. If you're always going to be shooting on a tripod then IS isn't useful, the f/2.8 may be better.

On the other hand, this is a good size lens for hand-holding, so why limit yourself to a tripod? For hand-holding IS would be useful. Unless of course your subject is moving and the light isn't good, then you'll really appreciate the 2.8.

Real conclusion: The 2.8 IS, while more expensive, is the most versatile lens. It's great for darker shooting conditions and ideal for hand-holding, and the wide aperture offers more photographic possibilites. It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim

[Ray West]

Hi Tim,

I think that 200mm is not long enough - few lenses are ;-), how about adding to your list the effect of teleconvertors. And then, as cameras improve in high iso performance, I think the the depth of field will be the most important issue.

I don't know whether any of this helps Cem. I'm waiting to see what he gets, then we can all wait to see how much he sells it for a couple of weeks later, before buying the other..... ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim,

I think that 200mm is not long enough - few lenses are ;-), how about adding to your list the effect of teleconvertors. And then, as cameras improve in high iso performance, I think the the depth of field will be the most important issue.


Good point. The f/2.8 gives you one stop more latitude when adding a teleconverter, which is not only helpful photographically but also helps the autofocus system. For example, the f/4 with a x2 teleconverter won't allow focusing on anything other than the pro series cameras which have a central focus point offering f/8 minimum autofocusing. The f/2.8 will be at f/5.6, which will work on any Canon DSLR. Since the 70-200 is an ideal candidate for use with a teleconverter, this may be of importance when making a decision.

Another minor detail: the 2.8 will have a brighter viewfinder, which offers a more pleasing experience.

As for 200mm not being long enough, this is totally subjective and depends entirely on the photography being done. I rarely use my 135mm and never need more than that. The welder picture that I posted a few days ago is one such example.

Tim

[Rachel Foster]

So, a teleconverter can be useful? I'm thinking of adding a teleconverter to my 18-55 "came with the camera" lens til I can buy a good lens with IS.

It's far from ideal, but some teleconverters are pretty inexpensive and better than nothing...or so I'm hoping. Some discussions think it's a total waste of time, but it might be a while before I can get a 70-300 IS.

[Tim Armes]

So, a teleconverter can be useful? I'm thinking of adding a teleconverter to my 18-55 "came with the camera" lens til I can buy a good lens with IS.

It's far from ideal, but some teleconverters are pretty inexpensive and better than nothing...or so I'm hoping.

A teleconverter reduces the quality of the image, so to be useful it needs to be used on a very good quality lens. I wouldn't recommend one for use on the kit lens (or any consumer lens for that matter).

Tim

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Tim. That was what I was tentatively concluding as well. Unfortunately, I need the IS so it will be a while.

[Kathy Rappaport]

I did not think you could use a TC on Non-L lenses or to get rigd of hte double ngegative..
I thought that the TC was only useable on the L Lenses.

[Don Lashier]

Cem, I don't recall ever having trouble obtaining focus with my f4, even in lowlight conditions. I would consider skipping the IS on the f4 because the assumption here is that you won't shoot much low light anyway so your shutter is usually going to be 1/500 or faster and handholding is really no problem without IS. Also the IS adds to the weight and bulk of the lens defeating its "pocketability". On those rare occasions I shoot indoors with the lens I use a tripod. If I were going to shoot indoors (stage etc) a lot I'd go for a 1.8 prime anyway. This brings the price down to $579.

That said I still pine for a 2.8 but primarily to blur the background in stadium situations.

> It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim, "slightly" heavier? The 2.8 IS is over twice the weight and maybe 50% bigger (volume).

- DL

[Tim Armes]

> It's only drawback is the slightly heavier size and weight compared to the f/4 (price aside).

Tim, "slightly" heavier? The 2.8 IS is over twice the weight and maybe 50% bigger (volume).
- DL

True. Still, I didn't find it all all that heavy in use.

[Tim Armes]

I did not think you could use a TC on Non-L lenses or to get rigd of hte double ngegative..
I thought that the TC was only useable on the L Lenses.

This is true of the Canon TC (although there are a few comptaible non-Ls, if I remember correctly). There are other TC on the market however.

That said, I'm not aware of any others that have the same reputation as the Canon ones.

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi there,

Let me start by saying how much I appreciate all your input, thanks a lot again.

This morning I've decided to be a bit more scientific and do an analysis on my portfolio. Just to find out what features I'll need the most. Mind you, I haven't had a tele lens since I started shooting digital so my analysis was based on extrapolation and guesstimates <LOL>. Still, my gut feeling says that the results are usable.

I did have a look at some 100 pictures and noted how much would they be helped by one of the following features:
Zoom beyond the 200mm, possibly at least 300mm needed: 25%
Low light shooting, i.e. F2.8 would be needed: 12%
Better bokeh needed: 14%
IS would have saved the otherwise ruined shot: 19 %

So based on these figures and the fact that my budget is rather limited (I need to spend as little as possible ATM), I have come up with the following options:

Option 1: Buy an F4 (non-IS) with a 1.4x TC and a good lightweight monopod.
I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8, but the 19% IS needing situations will be compensated to a certain degree by the monopod. Total lost opportunities: 14% max.

Option 2: Buy an F4 IS with a 1.4x TC.
I’ I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8. Total cost with respect to option 1 will increase by some 420 US $ (300 Euros). Total lost opportunities: 14% max. This is a budget strecthing option.

Option 3: Buy an F4 IS only.
I’ll be missing out on some 14% of the photo opportunities requiring F2.8 and 25% on the zoom. Total cost with respect to option 1 will remain the same. Total lost opportunities: 25% max.

Option 4: Buy an F2.8 (non-IS) with a 1.4x TC and a good lightweight monopod
The 19% IS needing situations will be compensated to a certain degree by the monopod. Total cost with respect to option 1 will increase by some 770 US $ (550 Euros). Total lost opportunities: 10% max. This is truly a budget breaking option.

So which option appeals to you? Shall using a monopod partially compensate for not having an IS as I've assumed that it will? If so, which monopod do you recommend?

Cheers,

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So which option appeals to you? Shall using a monopod partially compensate for not having an IS as I've assumed that it will? If so, which monopod do you recommend?

Cem, rather than making the choice you will ultimately have to make yourself, let me add some things to contemplate.

- You can always add an extender at a later date, 200mm is a wonderful focal length.
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS!
- f/2.8 is nice for bokeh, but image quality suffers a bit wide open (you may end up stopping down anyway).
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS (can't stress that enough ;) at longer focal lengths.
Camera shake is more devastating than many care to admit, or even realise.
The steady viewfinder image also helps composing and focusing.
- The f/4 IS is an amazing lens, relatively compact and light, and an optical marvel at the longer FL end, where I use it most.
- I don't know the difference in focus speed on the 5D, but on the 1 series the f/4 IS is fast enough, even in dim light.
Sure, f/2.8 is faster, but at a price.
- Did I mention the usefulness of IS? ;)

As for monopods, I'm very happy with my Gitzo GM3550.

Bart

[KrisCarnmarker]

Cem, I think one thing that has been mentioned but is not given enough weight is the actual improved focusing ability with the f2.8 version. Since I got my 100-400 there has been numerous occasions (in low light) where the AF simply will not lock. Switching to the 70-400 and there is no problem whatsoever. Mind you, the max aperture of the 100-400 is f4.5, but still...

[Tim Armes]

I did have a look at some 100 pictures and noted how much would they be helped by one of the following features


Cem, do you really think that you can judge your needs by looking at 100 photos? Such a tiny number is probably not going to help you to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, such an analysis tells you what you needed, not what you will need. How will you evolve? What are you aiming to do? Think about the type of photos that you want to take in the years ahead.

This is asking a lot, I realise. If you're anything like myself, you're probably asking for help because a) you like to make a good investment, b) you can't afford to make the investment that your heart's telling you to and c) you're worried about regretting your decision.

So, perhaps a good solution would be to buy a second hand 70-200 f/4 IS, knowing that you should get back what you paid for it. This will allow you to test it free of charge for a year :) After a year or so of use, you'll be able to answer these questions for yourself:

1) Is the focal length what you need?
2) Could you carry a heavier lens?
3) Did you use IS a lot?
4) Were you frustrated by the low-light capabilities?
5) Did you need to isolate your subject more than f/4 would allow you too?
6) Did you use all the range, or are you butting up at either end?
7) Would primes meet you needs better?

Etc.

By buying it second hand with the knowledge that you will change it if needed, you take all the stress out of trying to make a decision that you simply can't reliably make today.
[/quote]

Tim

[Cem_Usakligil]

...This is asking a lot, I realise. If you're anything like myself, you're probably asking for help because a) you like to make a good investment, b) you can't afford to make the investment that your heart's telling you to and c) you're worried about regretting your decision. ...
Hi Tim.

You are absolutely correct on all three :-).

I have searched for second hand F4 IS for sale on the web (in Benelux) but could not find any, no one is parting yet.

So if I buy one, it will be a new one I'm afraid (or not so afraid)....

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

Cem, I think one thing that has been mentioned but is not given enough weight is the actual improved focusing ability with the f2.8 version. Since I got my 100-400 there has been numerous occasions (in low light) where the AF simply will not lock. Switching to the 70-400 and there is no problem whatsoever. Mind you, the max aperture of the 100-400 is f4.5, but still...
Hi Kris,

Thanks a lot for this info. Not being able to AF is one of my least worries actually since I am rather good in adjusting the focus manually. So that will not be a showstopper for me :-).

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

Cem, rather than making the choice you will ultimately have to make yourself, let me add some things to contemplate. ...
...
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS!
....
- Do not underestimate the usefulness of IS (can't stress that enough ;) at longer focal lengths.
....
....
- Did I mention the usefulness of IS? ;)
...

LOL, thanks Bart. Did I mention that you've helped me a a lot?

I guess I should be off to the shop for an F4 IS then, without the extender or the monodpod for the time being <smile>.

Cheers (en hartelijk dank),

[Tim Armes]

Hi Tim.
You are absolutely correct on all three :-).
Cheers,

In that case I can only offer you one piece of advice: wait and save. Enjoy what you have now and buy what you really want when you can afford it.

I've made many such compromises myself and most of the time I end up with a nagging regret in the back of my head that never goes away.

Tim

[Cem_Usakligil]

In that case I can only offer you one piece of advice: wait and save. Enjoy what you have now and buy what you really want when you can afford it.

I've made many such compromises myself and most of the time I end up with a nagging regret in the back of my head that never goes away.

Tim
Oh my, this I read a little bit too late I'm afraid ;-).

I've bought the F4 IS this afternoon. And then went to Antwerpen to try it out. I'll share some pics here soon.

Thanks everybody for your invaluable advice and patience with me.

Cheers,

PS; If Ray is right, then you'll see an ad for a little used F4 IS in a few weeks' time <LOL>

[Don Lashier]

> Since I got my 100-400 there has been numerous occasions (in low light) where the AF simply will not lock. Switching to the 70-400 and there is no problem

My 70-200 f4 is an order of magnitude better at focusing than my 100-400 which was simply horrible. I don't ever recall having focusing issues with the 70-200, even in low light. The 100-400 was so bad even in broad daylight that I eventually got rid of it in favor of a 300 f4.

- DL

[Cem_Usakligil]

As promised, here are some pictures from the very first batch I took this afternoon/evening.

All the pictures are taken handheld, IS has been switched on all the time. Camera is 5D.

Firstly, here is one of my cat.
ISO 1600, 200mm, f4, 1/10 s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36193_0_204367507-O.jpg
As can be seen, the bokeh is rather pleasing and there were no issues with auto focus in th dim light.

Next, a trial shot to push the lens to the limits.
ISO 1600, 200 mm, f4, 1/5 s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36193_1_204367487-O.jpg
To me, this is amazing; 1/5 sec handheld at 200mm!

And some more.....

This one was the interior of an old loft, I "pushed" the lens through a small hole in the old door to take it. I like this a lot, even if I say so myself
ISO 400, 70mm, f8, 1/30s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36193_2_204367410-O.jpg

ISO 400, 70mm, f5.6, 1/60s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36193_3_204367450-O.jpg

More to follow in the next post....

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

...the saga continues:

ISO 400, 200mm, f8, 1/250s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36195_0_204367330-O.jpg

ISO 400, 121mm, f8, 1/640s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36195_1_204372850-O.jpg

ISO 400. 144mm, f11, 1/200s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36195_2_204367371-O.jpg

ISO 400, 169mm, f8, 1/250s, B&W conversion via channel mixing in LR
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36195_3_204372893-O.jpg

Thanks for looking.

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

OK, I'll stop now. It's just that this lens has made me so enthusiastic, unbelievable!

ISO 400, 70mm, f8, 1/640s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36196_0_204372768-O.jpg

ISO 400, 70mm, f8, 1/400s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36196_1_204372735-O.jpg

ISO 400, 200mm, f10, 1/50s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36196_2_204367288-O.jpg

ISO 400, 200mm, f5.6, 1/100s
http://www.envisagement.com/opf/shadow_copy/img_36196_3_204372942-O.jpg

Cheers,

[Nicolas Claris]

Fine! enjoy!

Congrats Cem for your new purchase, alas not ƒ2.8 !-)

now, use ƒ4 so we see the bokey…

[Cem_Usakligil]

...now, use ƒ4 so we see the bokey…
Merci Nicolas,

Did you see the picture of my cat, the first one? That is taken with f4, shows a nice bokeh if you ask me.

Cheers,

[Don Lashier]

Wow Cem! Show us how to use a telephoto why don't you.

btw with a tele f4 is usually wide enough for bokeh as splendidly illustrated by your cat portrait. Where I ran into problems is in stadium situations where both the subject and background are relatively far and f4 just doesn't provide enough separation.

Don't you just love the crispness and color of this lens?

- DL

[Cem_Usakligil]

Thx Don, <blush>

I understand what you're saying. I have taken a few pictures today in which the separation is not enough just like you describe, but that's a price I'm willing to pay ;-).
In the end, the lens is just amazing! I thought the stories about the sharpness were just exaggerations, but they were actually true. Happy, I am....

Regards,

[Kathy Rappaport]

While that copy of the F4 is seems to be pretty good, I have a feeling that in looking at your images, your skills are pretty good too....don't forget to factor in the photographer's skills in how a lens works!

Excellent, Cem!

[Don Lashier]

> While that copy of the F4 is seems to be pretty good ...

Like Lake Wobegon children, and unlike most lenses, all copies of that lens are "above average". (I think Cem is an above average photographer too ;)

- DL

[Ray West]

Methinks we have one happy chappie here ;-)

Can I use the word 'nice' ?

Best wishes,

Ray

[Nicolas Claris]

Merci Nicolas,

Did you see the picture of my cat, the first one? That is taken with f4, shows a nice bokeh if you ask me.

Cheers,

Hi Cem
Sorry I didn't as my browser showed me a new page with your last post, and I didn't guess there where a lot (even more fine and interesting)… pardon me!
I'm with Don with his comments, including tproblems is in stadium situations where both the subject and background are relatively far and f4 just doesn't provide enough separation but you've answered already!
Have a nice long lens week-end!

[Cem_Usakligil]

...Have a nice long lens week-end!
Hi Nicolas,

LOL, was that an intentional pun?
Long weekend + long lens = long lens weekend....

Have a nice weekend as well,

Regards,

[Nicolas Claris]

LOL, was that an intentional pun?
Long weekend + long lens = long lens weekend....


Well I guess it was the best hop' for ya!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As promised, here are some pictures from the very first batch I took this afternoon/evening.

All the pictures are taken handheld, IS has been switched on all the time. Camera is 5D.

Hi Cem,

Congratulations with the new lens. I have to say, you've already made some great images with it. It looks like this lens is boosting your creativity and eye for composition, 1+1=3 for sure. These first 'tests' look very nice, kudos.

I know you don't have a direct side by side comparison with its f/2.8 IS Goliath sibling, but how would you describe the f/4 IS' focus speed on the 5D? On my 1Ds2 it's marginally slower than my other f/2.8 lenses, not by much but just noticable. Any problems with dimly lit scenes?

Looking forward to seeing future results,
Bart

[Cem_Usakligil]

...I know you don't have a direct side by side comparison with its f/2.8 IS Goliath sibling, but how would you describe the f/4 IS' focus speed on the 5D? On my 1Ds2 it's marginally slower than my other f/2.8 lenses, not by much but just noticable. Any problems with dimly lit scenes? ..
Hi Bart,

Wil come back to you on this soon, currently I don't have an answer.

Thanks for your ongoing support and encouragemement. Also thanks to your input I'e decided to buy this great lens :-).

Cheers,

[Kathy Rappaport]

Talking about size and performance again....(sorry, I had to ...)

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Congratulations on the purchase. You have not been idle and one can see that you have put the lens to excellent use already. Certainly encouragement for those of us who have also been contemplating getting this lens.

[Nicolas Claris]

Talking about size and performance again....(sorry, I had to ...)

But don't that count to for you to? (sorry, I had to ... too)

[Cem_Usakligil]

But don't that count to for you to? (sorry, I had to ... too)
Oh my! Who are you and what have you done to our kind and gentle Nicolas? <LOL>

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

Congratulations on the purchase. You have not been idle and one can see that you have put the lens to excellent use already. Certainly encouragement for those of us who have also been contemplating getting this lens.
Thanks Ralph. Once I have narrowed my decision, I had to do something. Remaining idle was not an option for me.

Re. the lens, I can certainly recommend it. I did a small test this afternoon with a friends F2.8 (non IS) on my 5D and my new F4 IS. I'll share my thought on that later.

Cheers,

[Cem_Usakligil]

...I know you don't have a direct side by side comparison with its f/2.8 IS Goliath sibling, but how would you describe the f/4 IS' focus speed on the 5D? On my 1Ds2 it's marginally slower than my other f/2.8 lenses, not by much but just noticable. Any problems with dimly lit scenes? ..
Hi Bart,

Guess what, I just ran into a friend and he had his F2.8 (non IS) with him (lucky us). So I did some quick tests with both lenses on my 5D. This is not scientific of course, but my feeling re. the focussing speed is that the f4 is marginally slower than the f2.8. How much slower I can not say. Gut feeling is that it is around 20% slower. Just noticeable as you said yourself.

I did not encounter any AF problems with dimly lit scenes so far but it is early days yet. I did some tests in a dark church this afternoon. All was rather well and I am glad.

Later I can share some side-by-side shots of the f2.8 and the f4, if you want me to (re. the bokeh differences).

Cheers,

[Nicolas Claris]

Oh my! Who are you and what have you done to our kind and gentle Nicolas? <LOL>

But this IS kind and gentle! long lol <:-)>

[Kathy Rappaport]

We are treading in places we best not...as for a kind and gentle Nicolas, I think that I am the instigator of the trouble.

Cem,

I will be interested to see the variance in the bokeh. Actually, I think it would be a good test for met to do the same kind of test between my 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105is 4.0

[Sean DeMerchant]

So, a teleconverter can be useful? I'm thinking of adding a teleconverter to my 18-55 "came with the camera" lens til I can buy a good lens with IS.

It's far from ideal, but some teleconverters are pretty inexpensive and better than nothing...or so I'm hoping. Some discussions think it's a total waste of time, but it might be a while before I can get a 70-300 IS.

IIRC, the Canon teleconverters are only for use with telephoto lenses. So using one with the 18-55 is an unsupported configuration and it may not work.

enjoy your day,

Sean

[Sean DeMerchant]

And obviously the two most important advantages:
1) One stop wider aperture resulting in better bokeh


Wider apertures do not linearly correlate with the character of the boke. Correction of optical abberations (sic) in the lens design or lack thereof also greatly influence boke. With the 70-200 f/4 versus f/2.8 it is likely true, but only at apertures wider than f/2.8.

Your focal plane to background distance also influences boke. Turning on DoF preview and tweaking ones aperture to select the best compromise between the creamiest boke and best DoF can lead to aperture choices between f/10 and f/18 at times (ever the macro shooter).


2) One stop faster shutter speed

Not at apertures f/4 or smaller. At f/5.6 or smaller 3 stops of IS and a lighter lens will yield better handheld images than 2 stops of IS and a heavier lens in many peoples hands.l

some thoughts,

Sean

[Barry Johnston]

Hi Cem, which lens did you end up purchasing in the end ? and how do you find it ?

I'd be interested to know, as I am trying to make the same choice at present....

I also would like the 24-70 2.8 and a 100mm macro. Then I will call it quits !!..... for the moment.

Cheers,
Barry

[Ray West]

Hi Barry,

Cem bought the f4 IS, mentioned in his post of 5th Oct above. Most of his following images were with that lens, and from his posts, he seemed well pleased.

(I think Cem is off-line at the moment)

Best wishes,

Ray

[Barry Johnston]

Thanks Ray,
I must have missed a page there... some extremely nice results there. Canon L series lenses, certainly are the go....

Thanks,
Barry

[Kathy Rappaport]

The 70-200 2.8is is one of the sharpest in my bag. I only wish it were lighter but I can hand hold it quite well for extended periods.

[Dawid Loubser]

Hi there,

I know I am chiming in here a bit late, but I need to just re-iterate that if it is 200mm you are looking for, I cannot overstate how fantastically good the 200mm f/2.8L is - optical performance noticeably better than the already superb 70-200 (all four versions) in a smaller, lighter, better-handling lens. And (in my kit), the pleasantness of the bokeh is only bettered by the 50L. I do however not own the legendary-in-that-regard 85L.

The better performance becomes especially important if you want to use it with a teleconverter. It's a much more "limited" lens - no zoom, and no IS (which I have actually found to be far less of a problem that what I had thought it would be) but if you want the smallest 200mm with the best possible optical quality, it's a gem.

And at half the price of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS! Just decide if you really need a zoom or not. For the change, you could buy an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm Macro, both of which are also far superior to the L zooms in many respects (again, for the loss of versatility).

But Cem, I hope you enjoy your purchase! You cannot go wrong with the f/4, certainly it's canon's best zoom lens ever in terms of resolving power "wide open".

[Ralph Eisenberg]

At long last I added the 70-200/4 IS to my 70-200/2.8 IS and am very pleased with the acquisition. I do feel a bit guilty of being able to attain the very positive level of IQ provided by the former lens and its excellent IS without having to bear the weight of the still remarkable 70-200/2.8. Many thanks to all the contributors to this thread.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

At long last I added the 70-200/4 IS to my 70-200/2.8 IS and am very pleased with the acquisition. I do feel a bit guilty of being able to attain the very positive level of IQ provided by the former lens and its excellent IS without having to bear the weight of the still remarkable 70-200/2.8. Many thanks to all the contributors to this thread.

Hi Ralph,

Despite the obvious benefits of wider maximum aperture, although it's just one stop difference, how would you characterize the difference in low light focusing ability and speed? It can be important to mention the body you used it on.

With regards to IQ, how about the difference in bokeh? I notice that the f/4.0 has a slightly harsher bokeh than the fixed focal length EF 200mm f/2.8 II (which has super smooth bokeh). Is it much different from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS?

Bart

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Hi Ralph,

Despite the obvious benefits of wider maximum aperture, although it's just one stop difference, how would you characterize the difference in low light focusing ability and speed? It can be important to mention the body you used it on.

With regards to IQ, how about the difference in bokeh? I notice that the f/4.0 has a slightly harsher bokeh than the fixed focal length EF 200mm f/2.8 II (which has super smooth bokeh). Is it much different from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS?

Bart

Hi Bart,

I haven't yet had that much experience with this lens to be able to do justice to your questions and to provide a pertinent comparison. On at least one occasion that I used it in relatively low light, I had no trouble achieving focus quite rapidly with my 1Ds2 (you remember that camera!!). In trying conditions and depending on my set focus point, I've had trouble achieving focus with both lenses. Suffice to say that if I was going out and the light to start with was really low, I would use the 70-200/2.8. On the other hand, on the occasion that I used the 70-200/4 in relatively low-light, and was outside for 6 hours covering a social issue for a humanitarian organization with several other lenses in my bag, I was happy to have the lower-weight 70-200/4 IS. I probably would not have had a heavier lens of that focal length in my bag otherwise. Having a capture whatever its shortcomings may be better than none at all. In regard to bokeh, again from the vantage point of limited experience with this lens, I'd have to say that I find it pleasing but will await saying more until I have the time to print out some pictures.
I got this lens at the same time as I got the 50/1.2 and have of late been using the latter quite a bit (along with my trustworthy 85/1.2 v1) to put it through its paces and to become more accustomed to it. Asher has spoken very highly of this lens and this prompted me to get it. While I do not think that it is of the same caliber as the 85/1.2, it seems that one can get some very satisfying images with it (and very fine bokeh). At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about its reliability in focusing at fairly close quarters. But this is very OT.

[Dawid Loubser]

I got this lens at the same time as I got the 50/1.2 and have of late been using the latter quite a bit (along with my trustworthy 85/1.2 v1) to put it through its paces and to become more accustomed to it. Asher has spoken very highly of this lens and this prompted me to get it. While I do not think that it is of the same caliber as the 85/1.2, it seems that one can get some very satisfying images with it (and very fine bokeh). At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about its reliability in focusing at fairly close quarters. But this is very OT.

Hi Ralph,

I know this is further off-topic: I refer you to the 50L thread (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3643) started last year: The 50L is in danger of becoming one of my all-time favourite lenses for the character of the images it produces. Or, to use the proper term, for how it draws. It is somehow very, very different to any of the other lenses I own. I do not own the 85L, and have had limited occasion to use it, so I can accept that the 50L is potentially not quite as "good", but even so, it has a very different character.

It has a kind of "chunky" micro-contrast that make my images "pop" to such an extent that any form of sharpening actually seems to detract from the image. My images from this lens also seem to somehow have a natural depth that is quite different from that produced by a fast telephoto. Even so, I find the autofocus on this lens so unreliable that I am basically treating it as a fully manual-focus lens.

I feel, at this stage, that they may as well have left the USM motor and associated electronics out of it, and made it smaller - what chunk of glass that is for a mere 50mm! I find it to be, far and away, the most difficult of all my lenses to use. But, when you get it right, the most rewarding.

Lenses like the 100 Macro, 200L, 70-200L etc. are all clinical perfection, they just "work" - the 50L makes you work really hard to get results. But then, it is different in a way quite unobtainable with any of the aforementioned lenses.

But, I do guess, as customers of a hideously expensive piece of glass, we are probably within reason to be annoyed with Canon for the poor auto-focus. Anyway, this is off-topic, any further thoughts should probably be added to the correct thread (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3643).

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Hello Dawid,

I just wished to acknowledge your interesting post prior to going to the thread (with which I'm familiar) that you indicated above to check on some updates.