I am considering a 70-200mm for my 40D.
I wish I could afford an f2.8 with IS, but can only afford either the f2.8 non IS or the F4 IS weather sealed.
What swayes me to the F2.8 is obviously the aperture.
But the f4 has IS and weather sealed which can help against dust and dust mites. Any help please.
How much of your work will require f/2.8 shot wide open, and is it worth the extra weight and much more expensive filters? How much of your work is hand-held?
Guy
Posted by John Mumaw on August 19, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I can't help you with your choice, but there's quite a difference in price between the two lenses (almost $600!).
Both are 'L' lenses, so both are 'weather sealed' equally.
Neither will keep dust off of your sensor.
Seems to me that the f4 version is one of the best deals around for a Canon lens consisting of 'L' type construction.
Posted by Ed Cordes on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM
From what I have heard the 70-200 f4 IS is Canon's sharpest zoom and one of the sharpest in the world. For my money this is the way I would go.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM
The 70-200 series, whichever of the four your choose, is Canon's sharpest tele zoom. Differences in IQ between any of the four are so minor, IMO, as to be arguing over how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin. At that level we're mostly imagining differences.
Good points brought up so far.
I bought my 70-200 f2.8 non IS because of indoor wedding work (couldn't afford the IS version). Most pastors won't allow flash during the ceremony, so it's ambient light all the way. I shoot it off a monopod. Now, here's an interesting thing. Wedding subjects during the ceremony generally are pretty darn still, so subject movement isn't the issue here as it often is in nature photography. IS delivers 2-3 stops of increased performance, depending on whether it's the older or newer version of IS, and that means the f4 IS will outperform the f2.8 non IS in situations where subject movement isn't much of an issue. I ended up with the f2.8 non IS partly because I also use it for low-light nature, BIF and for sports, partly because with the 20D/30D/40D and 5D an f2.8 Canon lens offers increased focus sensitivity/performance when using the center focus point, and partly because I've practiced long and hard to develop rock solid technique off a sturdy monopod.
Day in and day out, I think the f4 IS is the better choice in this two-lens comparison for most photographers most of the time, because that IS accounts for 2 or 3 stops, and that's a pretty big thing. Sports and BIF photography, which mostly depend on panning, make IS nearly superfluous. Because the wedding work takes precedence for me, I'm seriously considering dumping the f2.8 non IS and picking up the f4 IS version. An IS tele on a strong monopod with decent technique is a deadly combination.
And the two lenses cost pretty much the same, so that's not much of an issue.
What I like in a 2.8 version is that you can create blurred background in portraits. eliminating unwanted messy bg.
Posted by Peter Conway on August 20, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I think if one is shooting moving objects the ability to open to f/2.8 is more important than the IS. If the subjects are more stationery then the IS wins.
Posted by Robert Fisher on August 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM
If the difference in aperture isn't crucial and if you'd consider the non-IS 70-200 then I'd suggest the non-IS f4 variant might also be considered. It's a terrific lens and without the IS circuitry is a bit lighter, making carrying it in the field more comfortable and making handholding more comfortable. If you're not doing a lot of handholding (i.e., shooting mostly from a tripod) then IS isn't an important factor anyway.
Steve, you might want to further consider dumping your f2.8. While IS in the f4 will give you additional headroom for handholding, it won't do anything for subject movement. In order to get the same shutter speeds, you're going to have to increase the ISO to offset the loss of the aperture stop. If you're pushing the limit of your shutter speed now (I know weddings aren't exactly fast moving affairs but some churches can be pretty dimly lit) then you're going to have to up the ISO which means more noise. If you've already considered all that, then I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Robert, there's no time wasting. No prob, and thank you for taking the time to comment.
Let me explain my thinking and my experience more clearly. Simon, sorry this digression is taking us away from nature photography. I do think some of the points made here apply even to nature shooting.
Robert, I know IS doesn't have an impact on subject movement. Wedding subject moving during the ceremony is negligible, as I'd mentioned. But even if there is subject movement, I can time my captures for pauses (I do anyway), and the simple fact is that an f4 IS, with its two or three stop advantage, will outperform an f2.8 non IS when it comes to camera shake, so I have a net GAIN of one or two stops as the IS counteracts the slower aperture, and will not have to up the ISO any more than it already is.
If at iso1600 I was shooting at 1/200 with the f2.8 non IS, I'm at 1/100 with the f4, but I gain at least two stops with the f4 IS, and I can shoot all day indoors with slow moving subjects and get sharp images at 1/100 with IS and a monopod. In some situations, it allows me to drop to ISO800 for a shutter speed of, say 1/50, and that means less pp work later with Noise Ninja. This is not theorizing on my part. I have experimented twice with a borrowed f4 IS indoors and found this comparison to be accurate. I've gotten very sharp shots of people indoors when subject movement is not an issue with the f4 IS at 1/30 to 1/40, always using a monopod. Sometimes I've been able to drop to iso400 and retain shutter speeds of 1/100 with the f4 IS, and at iso400 noise on a properly exposed image off a crop sensor is negligible.
In the end, regardless of whether we're talking nature or weddings, IMO with very slow or unmoving subjects camera shake is the beast that needs taming far more than subject movement.
Posted by Tony Winton on October 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Simon
I will not try and educate you on the difference between the 2.8 or 4.0, Steve Foss has done a great job in that, I believe his knowledge is truly above and beyond. I do not think you will ever go wrong listening to Steve’s suggestions. He has helped me out tremendously and been a God send when it comes to his knowledge. He was the primary source of knowledge when I bought my equipment and continues to be. I will tell you this, I have the f2.8 IS version of the 70-200 and the 40-D. I don’t regret the extra money spent but I did have to wait a little longer and had to sell a set of guns to get it but the sacrifice was well worth it. I use it for action type of photography, but my wife has used it for outdoor family and wedding portraits as well. I hope to get into rodeo photography to supplement the wildlife and landscape that my wife and I do. We had to determine what our primary use for the lenses would be and purchase along those guidelines. Since we wanted to do both redo and wildlife we decided the IS was a must. It simply meant I had to wait until I gathered the extra $600 to buy what I needed instead of impulse buying what I wanted. Thanks to my wife constantly reminding me that I would not be 100% happy with the non-IS version I now own what I truly wanted the f2.8 IS. All that to say determine what type of photography you plan to shoot and prepare for that. I have found that when I wait I am never displeased with the results; however, if I try to hurry the process along I often find that I did not buy the correct equipment and I end up paying more in the long run. With photography I cannot afford to buy it twice because I made a mistake buying in a hurry. I have decided patience is a virtue and the better part of valor. I hope this is helpful
Tony Winton
www.Redbudphotography.com
Discussion
9 repliesI wish I could afford an f2.8 with IS, but can only afford either the f2.8 non IS or the F4 IS weather sealed.
What swayes me to the F2.8 is obviously the aperture.
But the f4 has IS and weather sealed which can help against dust and dust mites. Any help please.
Simon.
Guy
Both are 'L' lenses, so both are 'weather sealed' equally.
Neither will keep dust off of your sensor.
Seems to me that the f4 version is one of the best deals around for a Canon lens consisting of 'L' type construction.
Good points brought up so far.
I bought my 70-200 f2.8 non IS because of indoor wedding work (couldn't afford the IS version). Most pastors won't allow flash during the ceremony, so it's ambient light all the way. I shoot it off a monopod. Now, here's an interesting thing. Wedding subjects during the ceremony generally are pretty darn still, so subject movement isn't the issue here as it often is in nature photography. IS delivers 2-3 stops of increased performance, depending on whether it's the older or newer version of IS, and that means the f4 IS will outperform the f2.8 non IS in situations where subject movement isn't much of an issue. I ended up with the f2.8 non IS partly because I also use it for low-light nature, BIF and for sports, partly because with the 20D/30D/40D and 5D an f2.8 Canon lens offers increased focus sensitivity/performance when using the center focus point, and partly because I've practiced long and hard to develop rock solid technique off a sturdy monopod.
Day in and day out, I think the f4 IS is the better choice in this two-lens comparison for most photographers most of the time, because that IS accounts for 2 or 3 stops, and that's a pretty big thing. Sports and BIF photography, which mostly depend on panning, make IS nearly superfluous. Because the wedding work takes precedence for me, I'm seriously considering dumping the f2.8 non IS and picking up the f4 IS version. An IS tele on a strong monopod with decent technique is a deadly combination.
And the two lenses cost pretty much the same, so that's not much of an issue.
Just some things to think about.
Steve, you might want to further consider dumping your f2.8. While IS in the f4 will give you additional headroom for handholding, it won't do anything for subject movement. In order to get the same shutter speeds, you're going to have to increase the ISO to offset the loss of the aperture stop. If you're pushing the limit of your shutter speed now (I know weddings aren't exactly fast moving affairs but some churches can be pretty dimly lit) then you're going to have to up the ISO which means more noise. If you've already considered all that, then I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Let me explain my thinking and my experience more clearly. Simon, sorry this digression is taking us away from nature photography. I do think some of the points made here apply even to nature shooting.
Robert, I know IS doesn't have an impact on subject movement. Wedding subject moving during the ceremony is negligible, as I'd mentioned. But even if there is subject movement, I can time my captures for pauses (I do anyway), and the simple fact is that an f4 IS, with its two or three stop advantage, will outperform an f2.8 non IS when it comes to camera shake, so I have a net GAIN of one or two stops as the IS counteracts the slower aperture, and will not have to up the ISO any more than it already is.
If at iso1600 I was shooting at 1/200 with the f2.8 non IS, I'm at 1/100 with the f4, but I gain at least two stops with the f4 IS, and I can shoot all day indoors with slow moving subjects and get sharp images at 1/100 with IS and a monopod. In some situations, it allows me to drop to ISO800 for a shutter speed of, say 1/50, and that means less pp work later with Noise Ninja. This is not theorizing on my part. I have experimented twice with a borrowed f4 IS indoors and found this comparison to be accurate. I've gotten very sharp shots of people indoors when subject movement is not an issue with the f4 IS at 1/30 to 1/40, always using a monopod. Sometimes I've been able to drop to iso400 and retain shutter speeds of 1/100 with the f4 IS, and at iso400 noise on a properly exposed image off a crop sensor is negligible.
In the end, regardless of whether we're talking nature or weddings, IMO with very slow or unmoving subjects camera shake is the beast that needs taming far more than subject movement.
I will not try and educate you on the difference between the 2.8 or 4.0, Steve Foss has done a great job in that, I believe his knowledge is truly above and beyond. I do not think you will ever go wrong listening to Steve’s suggestions. He has helped me out tremendously and been a God send when it comes to his knowledge. He was the primary source of knowledge when I bought my equipment and continues to be. I will tell you this, I have the f2.8 IS version of the 70-200 and the 40-D. I don’t regret the extra money spent but I did have to wait a little longer and had to sell a set of guns to get it but the sacrifice was well worth it. I use it for action type of photography, but my wife has used it for outdoor family and wedding portraits as well. I hope to get into rodeo photography to supplement the wildlife and landscape that my wife and I do. We had to determine what our primary use for the lenses would be and purchase along those guidelines. Since we wanted to do both redo and wildlife we decided the IS was a must. It simply meant I had to wait until I gathered the extra $600 to buy what I needed instead of impulse buying what I wanted. Thanks to my wife constantly reminding me that I would not be 100% happy with the non-IS version I now own what I truly wanted the f2.8 IS. All that to say determine what type of photography you plan to shoot and prepare for that. I have found that when I wait I am never displeased with the results; however, if I try to hurry the process along I often find that I did not buy the correct equipment and I end up paying more in the long run. With photography I cannot afford to buy it twice because I made a mistake buying in a hurry. I have decided patience is a virtue and the better part of valor. I hope this is helpful
Tony Winton
www.Redbudphotography.com