Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Faster or Lighter, 70-200mm f2.8 or f4  (Read 1867 times)
EdP
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: November 21, 2006, 03:00:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I am an avid amateur with a one-time opportunity to upgrade my lenses. I shoot everything from portraits to soccer games. I have a 20D, and I was thinking of 2 lenses. One is the 24-105 f4L IS. There is no question here. Then I was looking at the new 70-200mm F4L IS, but with the rebates offered right now, and the fact that the tripod mount is an extra $125.00 on the f4, there is only about a $200.00 difference between the 2 lenses. My question is,
cost aside, would I better better off with the smaller lighter f4, with the better IS, or the larger heavier 2.8. I'm wondering if I'll be sorry if I get the f4 because of the speed, or will I get really sick of the size and weight of the 2.8. I am also looking at the 1.4x extender. I am leaning towards the f4, because the 20D has great low light capability, and I can shoot 800 or even 1600 ISO if I need to.

Any advice from anyone who has used these lenses would be appreciated.  I need to get this right, because with 1 daughter in college and another going in next year, it will be a llloooonng time before I'll be buying any more toys.

Thanks a lot,

Ed
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2006, 03:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I recently had this question. I shoot weddings for a living but the f4L had been used mainly for landscape, I'm not the worlds best handholder of longer lenses so most of the time I would use a friends 70-200 f2.8L IS when I needed the extra reach handheld during commercial jobs.

Firstly I would put your mind at rest about the tripod collar, the general consensus born out by me during years of use on tripods is that the light f4L does not really need the tripod collar. When using a super light weight travel tripod (Velbon CF-513) and the 1.4X on FF I would say that it would have helped but I'm now using a far more steady tripod (Manfrotto MF3) and it is not necessary. It is useful when not using an L bracket for quick changing between horizontal and vertical but otherwise I wouldn't sweat it.

For me the size of the f4 was certainly a very substantial part of my decision, the 2.8L looks and feels double that of the lighter lens in use. It does provide a good and balanced heft with a camera + grip or a 1 series but you are going to find it very difficult to use in vertical mode with a 20D sans grip handheld.

I bought the f4L IS to replace my excellent f4L, it gives me the IS that I need when shooting in low ambient light at a 1/60 as well as the lighter weight for my landscape bag which will be most welcome. Yes the f2.8 was not that more expensive but at present I need to invest money into a serious radio light slave system and I really don't need the heavier 2.8L, one step backwards and zoom out a drop more and you have the same bokeh anyway.
Logged

boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2006, 03:44:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am an avid amateur with a one-time opportunity to upgrade my lenses. I shoot everything from portraits to soccer games. I have a 20D, and I was thinking of 2 lenses. One is the 24-105 f4L IS. There is no question here. Then I was looking at the new 70-200mm F4L IS, but with the rebates offered right now, and the fact that the tripod mount is an extra $125.00 on the f4, there is only about a $200.00 difference between the 2 lenses. My question is,
cost aside, would I better better off with the smaller lighter f4, with the better IS, or the larger heavier 2.8. I'm wondering if I'll be sorry if I get the f4 because of the speed, or will I get really sick of the size and weight of the 2.8. I am also looking at the 1.4x extender. I am leaning towards the f4, because the 20D has great low light capability, and I can shoot 800 or even 1600 ISO if I need to.

Any advice from anyone who has used these lenses would be appreciated.  I need to get this right, because with 1 daughter in college and another going in next year, it will be a llloooonng time before I'll be buying any more toys.

Thanks a lot,

Ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ed, for any reason do you need either the shallower depth-of-field available on the f/2.8 model or the brighter viewfinder image available (for manual focusing and visualization)?

If not, consider the f/4 option. Get it and enjoy it.

If so, you need to evaluate what's more important: the lighter weight or the brighter viewfinder and enhanced DOF control.

Image quality is about the same (great) either way.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
EdP
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2006, 06:01:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks a Lot for the feedback. I'm going with the f4.

Ed
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad