Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=28795559&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM or Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4.0 L IS USM on a Canon 400D : Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I'm looking to purchase a Canon 70-200mm lens for my 400D.
I'm can't make up my mind whether to go for the f/2.8 or f/4.0 version of this L series.
Landscape is what I shoot most but I'm looking at using it for sport as well.
I'm not worried about weight or cost as I have the money ready to spend and I'm a strong fit lad.
Any helpful advice is appreciated.
Chris.
My other equipment includes:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon 430 EX Speedlite flashgun.
If anyone can, Canon can!
|
|
I think there are like 2,000++ threads on this exact question.
Do some searches and you will get lots of info.
FWIW - I have the f4.0 IS and am very happy with it.
--
http://www.brokenarrowranch.ca
Broken Arrow Ranch
|
|
I recently purchased the 70-200/2.8L IS and have not looked back.
I believe it is the most versatile of the lot.
It may be edged out sharpness-wise by the f/4 IS, but I believe in practice the difference is negligible.
I shot with both the f/4 and the 2.8 before purchasing and the focus speed of the 2.8 was noticeably faster in low light.
For your uses, either lens should do quite well for sports shooting, and landscapes would probably be a similar story unless you go for low-light, low DOF landscapes.
--
Cheerio...
Rich
|
|
I did that and am getting more and more confused because both lenses are very good.
I am not going to repeat the 2000 comments you may find searching DpReview but either way you will be happy.
Here are couple comments, relevant to my two lenses ONLY, with 40D:
- The F/2.8 is slightly softer @ 2.8 compared to @4.0 on the F/4.0 but starting from 3.2 and up it is sharper than any settings on the F/4.0, based on tripod testing with IS off.
- Because of the weight, I feel the F/4.0 is better for hand-held at very low light, as you would need to hold the lens for longer time.
That does not mean the F/4.0 is better but it is easier to deal with.
- Sure, the F/2.8 performs in cases the F/4.0 would not do.
I think this is the case to select either lenses.
Do you need the F/2.8 (actually F/3.2) vs.
F/4.0 to F/4.5 + focusing advantage (speed and accuracy of the F/2.8).
Read the review of the F/2.8, lens reviews on this site.
Hopefully that helps.
AM
|
|
Http://the-digital-picture.com/...
...0-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You should also consider using the 70-200 f/4 IS and a telephoto prime lens, such as the 200 f/2.8.
http://the-digital-picture.com/...
...F-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
--
http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/
|
|
I may prefer the F/2.8 lens because I can use a 1.4X extension and turn it to 100-280mm with IS and F/4 vs F/5.6 for the other lens.
That would be helpful if carrying one lens is needed.
AM
|
|
Thanks all, for the helpful advice so far.
I'm going to go for the f2.8L IS.
I see AJ Purdy (UK online retailer) are offering this lens for £1199.00 and free next day delivery, which is the cheapest I have seen it sold for.
I could have bought it from Jessops yesterday afternoon and went so far as to reserve order and collect@store only to arrive in time to catch the sales assistant taking the display copy off sale to sell to me, maybe I'm fussy but I'm spending a lot of money and want mine fresh out of the box, needless to say I cancelled that order and will try the aforementioned AJ Purdy at the weekend.
--
If anyone can, Canon can!
|
|
Abeer Quote: :
>
But starting from 3.2 and up it is sharper than any settings on the
>
F/4.0, based on tripod testing with IS off.
Extremely unlikely to be the general case.
Care to explain how you did the tests (i.e.
Was AF used, MLU for how long, remote/timer release used etc., how areas were chosen for focusing, which areas were examined etc.)
>
- Because of the weight, I feel the F/4.0 is better for hand-held at
>
Very low light, as you would need to hold the lens for longer time.
Quite absurd.
It's not really that simple.
One has a 1-stop aperture advantage while the other has a 1-stop IS advantage.
At the end of the day, they both gather the same light in terms of hand-holdability but the f/2.8 is always going to have shutter speeds twice as short as the f4, halving the handholding times...
But come on! If even on a FF body with the 2.8 IS the longest could you could do without blur at 200mm is 1/30s and with the 4 IS for the same light you'd do 1/15s.
There small durations work in the mind more than in the arms.
>
That does not mean the F/4.0 is better but it is easier to deal with.
>
- Sure, the F/2.8 performs in cases the F/4.0 would not do.
Care to explain these performance criteria?
And how you have measured them?
>
I think this is the case to select either lenses.
Do you need the F/2.8
>
(actually F/3.2)
Sorry...
Where did the f/3.2 come from?
You can't make unusual claims like these without backing them up with reasoning or test results.
>
Vs. F/4.0 to F/4.5 + focusing advantage (speed and
>
Accuracy of the F/2.8).
Speed and accuracy?
Are you saying that the f4 IS is slower and less accurate than the 2.8 IS?
I could only lol...
But again, please do explain your findings if you have found something the rest of the world hasn't.
>
Read the review of the F/2.8, lens reviews on this site.
Hopefully
> that helps.
Ah yes...
Reading only the 2.8 IS review should make it clear whether it's better than a lens that wasn't reviewed here...
Good point.
GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
|
|
Canon EOS400D Quote: :
>
Thanks all, for the helpful advice so far.
I'm going to go for the
>
F2.8L IS. I see AJ Purdy (UK online retailer) are offering this lens
>
For £1199.00 and free next day delivery, which is the cheapest I have
>
Seen it sold for.
I could have bought it from Jessops yesterday
>
Afternoon and went so far as to reserve order and collect@store only
>
To arrive in time to catch the sales assistant taking the display
>
Copy off sale to sell to me, maybe I'm fussy but I'm spending a lot
>
Of money and want mine fresh out of the box, needless to say I
>
Cancelled that order and will try the aforementioned AJ Purdy at the
>
Weekend.
> --
Congratulations on your choice.
It's an extraordinary lens that serves up maximum versatility.
--
|
|
The guy was just giving his subjective impressions of both lenses.
He liked different things about each one based on his own tests.
You have the 70-200/4 IS, which by all reviews I have seen is the sharpest of the lot.
Congratulations. Knowing this, and having conducted some tests of my own, I opted for the 2.8IS because I felt it met my needs better.
Different strokes for different folks.
--
Cheerio...
Rich
|
|
Just an update to this post.
I ordered the f/2.8 IS version from AJ Purdy here in the UK.
They promise free next day delivery so it should arrive sometime on Wednesday 6th August, if it is in stock.
I went down to my local camera store and had a hold of the f/4 IS version which is incredibly light - moreso than my 24-70 f/2.8 L.
I can live with the extra weight of the 2.8 IS as I won't be using it all day everday.
I'm looking at getting a monopod to compliment my tripod (190xprob w/mg460 head) for areas where hiking may be involved.
I was recently in the Lake District in the north west of England, the views there will take your breath away and if you wish to hike up to the hills and mountains it's heavy going with a tripod and camera with a reasonably heavy lens such as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8...
For anyone intending to vist the UK I would recommend doing some research on this area of England and maybe adding it into your itinery, I stayed in a town called Keswick (a car can be hired from Carlisle rail station) it's not too touristy and it's quite central.
Anyway, back to monopods...
Manfrotto seem to have a couple that will suit and there is a wealth of info on here and elsewhere to help me make an informed choice.
I'd just like to thank everyone for their opinions and advice re the f2.8 and f4 versions.
I'm sure I will be happy with my purchase.
All the best,
Chris.
--
If anyone can, Canon can!
|
|
Quote: :
> The guy was just giving his subjective impressions of both lenses.
>
He liked different things about each one based on his own tests.
>
>
You have the 70-200/4 IS, which by all reviews I have seen is the
>
Sharpest of the lot.
Congratulations. Knowing this, and having
>
Conducted some tests of my own, I opted for the 2.8IS because I felt
>
It met my needs better.
Different strokes for different folks.
I completely agree that the two serve two different purposes.
And yes, the person was speaking from their own experience but if people want one-sided opinions then there are lots of personal blogs on these sorts of things out there.
If we can't question and discuss, I think it defies the purpose of discussion forums.
I'm gladly willing to hear any good reasons why we shouldn't question/discuss things that get posted here.
GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
|
|
I decided not to reply the first time because it did not look like discussing.
It looked like rough arguments.
The main purpose of those furoms is to discuss and learn from each other.
But there are lines when discussing and questioning.
I do not have enough time to follow up closely on aevery written comment, but I visit the site to learn about photography.
Please accept my appology for my limited experience on the subject.
Keep in mind that product variability is fact and it is not uncommon to get a lens that is better than most available in the market, or vise versa.
Add to that my inputs were based on personal exsperience and special prospectives and we can expect different opinions on the same subject.
AM
|
|
Abeer Quote: :
>
It looked like rough arguments.
Bold, unsupported statements can call for things like that...
>
The main purpose of those
>
Furoms is to discuss and learn from each other.
But there are lines
>
When discussing and questioning.
I do not have enough time to follow
>
Up closely on aevery written comment, but I visit the site to learn
>
About photography.
Please accept my appology for my limited
>
Experience on the subject.
I may have not given the warmest reply but I was honest and sincere.
I do not accept your apology because I don't think limited experience calls for an apology.
If experience was that important then young people should be worshipping 80 year olds.
But you must agree that you made some bold statements without backing them up with reason.
>
Keep in mind that product variability is fact and it is not uncommon
>
To get a lens that is better than most available in the market, or
>
Vise versa. Add to that my inputs were based on personal exsperience
>
And special prospectives
Sure...
You had a bad sample of the f4 version and a very good sample of the 2.8 lens...
>
And we can expect different opinions on the
>
Same subject.
...
But what about when you said "I feel the F/4.0 is better for hand-held at very low light, as you would need to hold the lens for longer time."?
As I pointed out, the f/2.8 IS needs to be held half as long to gather the same amount of light.
That aside, since the shutter speed differences are already in the order of fractions of a second when being handheld, it doesn't make a difference at the end of the day even if the f4 IS needed to be held twice as long as the 2.8.
If you felt that your experience was limited enough to require an apology, then you should have at least hinted this fact when you confidently made your statements.
GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
|
|
That is what I was avoiding, endless argument for no benefits...
I was not appologizing to any one for any reason.
I was commenting on what I felt as crossing the line of discussion.
Please, let's end this argument ..
Thanks.
AM
|
|
Abeer Quote: :
>
That is what I was avoiding, endless argument for no benefits...
>
>
I was not appologizing to any one for any reason.
I was commenting on
>
What I felt as crossing the line of discussion.
Please, let's end
>
This argument ..
>
>
Thanks.
No problem :)
GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter
|
|
|
|