• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon 70-200mm reviews- What do they mean exactly?

G

GWestphal

Golden Member
The often discussed 70-200 f4 IS vs F2.8 IS has hundreds of discussions.

The proponents of the f2.8 IS, say get it if you need low light or narrow DOF. But quantitatively how much is that.

I used a DOF calculator to compare the DOF between f4 and f2.8 at 15ft at 85mm and f2.8=0.4ft and f4=0.6ft. That's 2.4 inches which doesn't really seem that significant. If something was right on the edge couldn't you just move forward or back an inch?

When they say "low light" how much is low light? Like almost dark or the lighting in a typical office or what? The f2.8 only has a 1 stop advantage. So, maybe you keep your f4 open 1/400 vs 1/800 basically. With the exception of the really fast sports, that doesn't seem like a normal shutter speed.

For my purposes I'd be shooting studio portraits and fashion primarily along with indoor and outdoor with kids.

Anyone know if there are actually photo comparisons between the two in portrait, fashion, sports, etc.

The advantages of the f2.8 seem like they are only relevant for extreme scenarios (where 1 in of DOF matters and you can't move or in really dark places), where the advantages of f4 (sharpness, weight, price) would be useful in pretty much every scenario.

Am I understanding this correctly? Or am I missing why they say the f2.8 is a portrait lens, it seems like the f4 and f2.8 would be nearly identical at portrait work.
 
Last edited:
The f4 is sharp until you get close to the minimum focus distance.
Also, there are some sharp 2.8 IS copies out there. It's just a huge copy variance with the first gen. Hence Canon designing the 2nd gen.
I got lucky. My gen 1 2.8 IS is awesomely sharp.
Weird, because it was the last one in stock at the camera shop I bought it at some years ago.
Anyway, if you are only looking for blurred OOF backgrounds. There are other choices. I prefer my 135 f2 for that. Even my 85 1.8 does okay for headshots. Maybe the Siggy 85 1.4.
Not as versatile as the 70-200's, but worth a look if OOF is a primary concern.
To give you a hint, my 70-200 is untouched these days.
 
GWestphal said:
The f2.8 only has a 2/3 of stop advantage which is like 40% more light.
Click to expand...

In thirds: 2.8
3.2
3.5
4.0

That's one full stop.

As stated by foghorn, if outdoor portrait work is your top concern maybe you should look at a faster prime for the most background blur.
 
Bokeh isn't my primary concern, but the reviews make it sound like the f4 doesn't have any bokeh at all, but the math just doesn't seem to agree with that. If you're in a studio where you have control of lighting, subject distance, tripods etc, you will be able to make similarly attractive bokeh with an f4 vs an f2.8, right?
 
Sure the difference of 1/400 vs 1/800 may not seem substantial. But consider 1/500 vs 1/1000 may be the difference of entirely stopping sports action. 1/30 vs 1/60 or 1/60 vs 1/125 may be the difference of being able to move about handheld with available light for indoors shots.

Also, I don't know if the percentage difference of DOF equates to the same difference with bokeh, but if it does, 40% "bokeh-ier" (all other things being equal) wouldn't be an insignificant amount.

Here's a comparison set (even if one seems to have a bit more motion blur)
 
I debated this for a LONG time. I'm a wedding photographer. I wound up with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). It is VERY sharp at all FL and apertures. ..Got mine for under $1000. 😉
 
GWestphal said:
The often discussed 70-200 f4 IS vs F2.8 IS has hundreds of discussions.

The proponents of the f2.8 IS, say get it if you need low light or narrow DOF. But quantitatively how much is that.

I used a DOF calculator to compare the DOF between f4 and f2.8 at 15ft at 85mm and f2.8=0.4ft and f4=0.6ft. That's 2.4 inches which doesn't really seem that significant. If something was right on the edge couldn't you just move forward or back an inch?

When they say "low light" how much is low light? Like almost dark or the lighting in a typical office or what? The f2.8 only has a 1 stop advantage. So, maybe you keep your f4 open 1/400 vs 1/800 basically. With the exception of the really fast sports, that doesn't seem like a normal shutter speed.

For my purposes I'd be shooting studio portraits and fashion primarily along with indoor and outdoor with kids.

Anyone know if there are actually photo comparisons between the two in portrait, fashion, sports, etc.

The advantages of the f2.8 seem like they are only relevant for extreme scenarios (where 1 in of DOF matters and you can't move or in really dark places), where the advantages of f4 (sharpness, weight, price) would be useful in pretty much every scenario.

Am I understanding this correctly? Or am I missing why they say the f2.8 is a portrait lens, it seems like the f4 and f2.8 would be nearly identical at portrait work.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be in a "really dark place" for you to be at ISO 800, 1/100, f/4. Most indoor locations, or outdoor sports at night are easily there or even worse. Having f/2.8 available makes you not have to bump to ISO 1600 or drop to 1/50 shutter speed.

That said, I carry an f/4L IS. The size and weight benefits outweigh the extra stop, for my purposes. But then I am pretty much a personal/travel photographer. I don't make money with my photography hobby. If I were a wedding photographer or otherwise getting paid regularly to take photos indoors -- I would move to the 2.8 immediately. The extra stop will make a difference on the margin, and indoor light is always marginal.
 
Ok so after reading all night.

A lot of people compare the bokeh using just the 2.8 lens, using f2.8 and f4. But the bokeh isn't just about the aperature, it's also about the lens elements. And I found a few posts saying that the f4 lens has smoother bokeh than what the f2.8 lens can make at f4. If that was the case it would make the bokeh of the f4 lens almost equal to the bokeh of the f2.8 lens at f2.8.
 
Perhaps it would be better to look at it this way.

70-200mm f4 IS + 50mm 1.4 = 1400 (weight, price, short reach bokeh)

70-200mm f2.8 IS II = 2200 (long reach bokeh, faster across all)
 
foghorn67 said:
The f4 is sharp until you get close to the minimum focus distance.
Also, there are some sharp 2.8 IS copies out there. It's just a huge copy variance with the first gen. Hence Canon designing the 2nd gen.
I got lucky. My gen 1 2.8 IS is awesomely sharp.
Weird, because it was the last one in stock at the camera shop I bought it at some years ago.
Anyway, if you are only looking for blurred OOF backgrounds. There are other choices. I prefer my 135 f2 for that. Even my 85 1.8 does okay for headshots. Maybe the Siggy 85 1.4.
Not as versatile as the 70-200's, but worth a look if OOF is a primary concern.
To give you a hint, my 70-200 is untouched these days.
Click to expand...
You use FF or crop bodies?
What lens and focal length that you use most of the time?
Which lens you often use to take outdoor portraits & group shots?

Thanks
 
GWestphal said:
I found this 2.8 IS II for $1099, how can this be? It's weird because they price the f4 IS at $1300. Is this a counterfeit lens?

http://esportmart.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2.8l-is-ii-usm.html
Click to expand...

in the camera world if it's too good to be true, then it is too good to be true. likely they'll call you and say you need to buy hundreds of dollars in accessories (which were supposed to come with it anyway) and warranties, and if you don't they just cancel your order. and that's if they're honest scammers and not just trying to steal your credit card.
 
I had the non IS 2.8 version and had the same opinion as the other poster. Sharp wide open at all focal lengths and super sharp just down 2/3 stop at 3.5. Creamy bokeh, fast accurate focusing. Superb lens and a great bargain.

If you don't need the AF speed but want sharp, nice bokeh, 2.8, and 70-200 range the Tamron is REALLY a bargain. Used for less $500.

So for you in the studio and outdoors during the daylight the F4 version should be fine. If you need that little extra shallow DOF, back up use a longer FL and adjust the placement of your subjects.

Gene
 
I went and picked up a 50mm 1.4 today. I think I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f4 IS since I don't do sports or much low light.
 
Primarily used for studio portraits and studio fashion/beauty modeling as well as all purpose nature landscapes, kids, this/that and the thing.
 
GWestphal said:
Primarily used for studio portraits and studio fashion/beauty modeling as well as all purpose nature landscapes, kids, this/that and the thing.
Click to expand...

studio portraits I never pull out my f/2.8 IS II. It's always the 24-70 or the 17-40mm. At weddings, one camera always have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II mounted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top