Canon 70-200 2.8 L or 70-200 4.0 L

03/12/2009 10:13:57 AM · #1

I'm new to the site but I've been reading the forums for a few years and just now joined. I have searched the forums and can't find anything on these two lenses against each other. I know that this site has many great people and can help me so here goes.

I graduate in May and for my present my wife has told me she will buy me a new lens.

Which of these would be better suited for mostly outdoors with natural light?
I do mostly seniors but some weddings and family will be done also.
Would the IS model be better in either of these?
Will the bokeh be close on both lens and will the IS change the look of the bokeh?
I have the 40D is there another lens that I should look at?

I have really wanted to get some quality glass and I think that this is a good chance to get some of the best. Anything else I need to know about these lens or others that would help would be great.

Thanks
Shane

03/12/2009 10:20:44 AM · #2

First of all welcome.

I was on the fence and bought the 70-200/4.0 IS over the 2.8 non-IS. I did this because the 4.0 is a physically smaller and lighter lens. The IS versions of each lens (4.0 and 2.8) are the same size as their respective non-IS models.

One important thing to remember is that IS cannot freeze motion like a wider aperture can. With that said, I taken sharp pictures at 200mm with 1/15s shutter on my 4.0 IS. I have never shot weddings but every wedding photogapher on this site (at least to my knowledge) swears by the 2.8 IS. It is the most expensive of the line-up, but if you are making money with it, it is a no-brainer. All of the 70-200 are scathingly sharp.

Good Luck.

goinskiing

03/12/2009 10:23:10 AM · #3

Originally posted by stultsphoto:

Which of these would be better suited for mostly outdoors with natural light?
I do mostly seniors but some weddings and family will be done also.
Would the IS model be better in either of these?
Will the bokeh be close on both lens and will the IS change the look of the bokeh?
I have the 40D is there another lens that I should look at?

Welcome!

If you can get the F2.8, go for it, you won't regret it. However, if your budget is a little more limited then the F4L will server perfectly well under good lighting circumstances (primarily outdoors). If your doing any indoor stuff at all you'll want the F2.8 as it'll give you an extra stop which can be invaluable. If you can afford the F2.8 IS, it'll be well worth it as it offers the most flexibility. As far as bokeh, I'm not sure, but my F4L produces some wonderful bokeh. Either will work just splendidly on your 40D.

brownsm

Canon EOS-5D

03/12/2009 10:23:31 AM · #4

I've had both of these lenses, the f4 version first. both non-IS versions. When I had the f4 version, it was my favorite lens. Excellent color reproductions, fast autofocus, great lens all-around. Then I wanted a longer focal length, so I sold it to be another lens. Kind of regretted it. So, sold the longer lens and bought the f2.8 version. I'd say it's even better than the f4. The wider aperture lets in twice as much light, so shots in the gymnasium or indoors in general, are easier to capture. I love the bokeh, and look of the images with this. Now I have a FF camera, and i love it even more! For me, I have steady hands and use a tripod often, so IS isn't much of a concern. But I could certainly see how it would help, especially when at longest reach and slower shutter speeds. so for me, the f2.8 version is a better lens.

As for another lens to look at, it really depends on what you want to shoot. On the 40D, for portraits and family shots, I would look at the 24-70 type lenses. I have the canon L version, and it's fantastic. For portraits, I think the 70-200 might be a little too long on your camera. If you are looking for primes, the 85 f1.8, 50 f1.4, would be excellent choices, and both reasonably priced ($350 -$400 if my memory serves correctly).

if you have more specific questions, feel free to post here, or PM

edit: I just saw your lens line-up, so you probably have a good idea what focal length works for what you shoot. so, assuming this is indeed the right focal length range for you, then I would recommend the lenses in this order (first to last, choose depending on budget): f2.8 IS, f2.8 non IS, f4 IS, f4 non-IS

Message edited by author 2009-03-12 10:26:50.

03/12/2009 10:24:34 AM · #5

Originally posted by Five_Seat:

goinskiing

03/12/2009 10:28:25 AM · #6

Originally posted by stultsphoto:

Thanks Five_Seat. This is a big help. So if i'm looking to freeze motion like in sports potography I would need to go with the 2.8 IS but If i'm doing mostly senior outdoor photography the 4.0 with or without the IS would be better?

Thanks
Shane
Originally posted by Five_Seat:
First of all welcome.

I was on the fence and bought the 70-200/4.0 IS over the 2.8 non-IS. I did this because the 4.0 is a physically smaller and lighter lens. The IS versions of each lens (4.0 and 2.8) are the same size as their respective non-IS models.

One important thing to remember is that IS cannot freeze motion like a wider aperture can. With that said, I taken sharp pictures at 200mm with 1/15s shutter on my 4.0 IS. I have never shot weddings but every wedding photogapher on this site (at least to my knowledge) swears by the 2.8 IS. It is the most expensive of the line-up, but if you are making money with it, it is a no-brainer. All of the 70-200 are scathingly sharp.

Good Luck.

If outdoor senior photos is your primary use then the F4L non-IS will serve you fine. I use it for senior shoots and it perfect for shoulder up shots and produses great bokeh and sharp at F4L. That being said however, if you can afford the IS, or the F2.8, or the F2.8 IS, don't hesitate. But the F4L non-IS definitely the most affordable of the bunch and does not compromise on image quality/build.

03/12/2009 10:34:23 AM · #7

Originally posted by brownsm:

brownsm

Canon EOS-5D

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

03/12/2009 10:45:58 AM · #8

Originally posted by stultsphoto:

Thanks brownsm. I have both the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 primes. I tend to use my 85mm prime more on senior pictures and that's why I thought the 70-200 would work for me. I thought that I could use the 70-90 range to do seniors and then use the rest for sports and wildlife. I know that I love my 85mm prime and I've heard how great the 70-200 is in both 2.8 and 4.0 so I thought it would fit. I also plan to upgrade to a 5d mark II in the future. Is it better to get less glass now and wait till I upgrade to get this lens? What camera did you have before you got your 5d and was it to long for that camera? If you had it on your other camera where did you have a problem with it being long? Thanks for all the help and sorry for all the questions.

thanks
Shane
Originally posted by brownsm:
I've had both of these lenses, the f4 version first. both non-IS versions. When I had the f4 version, it was my favorite lens. Excellent color reproductions, fast autofocus, great lens all-around. Then I wanted a longer focal length, so I sold it to be another lens. Kind of regretted it. So, sold the longer lens and bought the f2.8 version. I'd say it's even better than the f4. The wider aperture lets in twice as much light, so shots in the gymnasium or indoors in general, are easier to capture. I love the bokeh, and look of the images with this. Now I have a FF camera, and i love it even more! For me, I have steady hands and use a tripod often, so IS isn't much of a concern. But I could certainly see how it would help, especially when at longest reach and slower shutter speeds. so for me, the f2.8 version is a better lens.

As for another lens to look at, it really depends on what you want to shoot. On the 40D, for portraits and family shots, I would look at the 24-70 type lenses. I have the canon L version, and it's fantastic. For portraits, I think the 70-200 might be a little too long on your camera. If you are looking for primes, the 85 f1.8, 50 f1.4, would be excellent choices, and both reasonably priced ($350 -$400 if my memory serves correctly).

if you have more specific questions, feel free to post here, or PM

I had the 20D originally, and used both lenses on that camera. I didn't find it too long, except for portraits indoors (you need a long room to make that work!). But, the crop factor does make it fairly long (equivalent to 320mm at its longest reach) and works well for most sports. Although I have to admit I yearned for even more reach for sports. But, on the other hand, the extra reach lens I got only went down to f5.6 at far end, and I wanted the wider aperture for better blurred backgrounds. That's why I went back to the 70-200, but in the f2.8 version this time. I am much happier, since my backgrounds are less distracting. This is important for good sports photos. Now that I have the 5D, this lens is even better! Not as long without the crop factor, but I can crop and zoom to my heart's content, and still get great photos. The quality lens, coupled with the great body, enable that.

Another option for sports and wildlife is the 100-400 L. It's f5.6 at long end, but takes wonderfully sharp pics. Getting a 400 mm lens with wider apertures is a whole other level of spending!!

I never regretted buying my 70-200 f2.8. I don't see myself ever getting rid of it. Just used it last night, in fact, for shooting some basketball in a high school gym. On the full frame, it works great for shots down the court. As far as when to buy the glass, having quality lenses is never a bad thing. I bought the better glass first before I upgraded to full frame, and I think that was a good way to do it. I don't think I would have been happy using the 5D with more inferior lenses. But then again, I had already seen what this lens could do, so any other lens would have been a disappointment ;)

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

03/12/2009 10:56:30 AM · #9

Don't forget about the 1.4x teleconvertor, which makes that 70-200/2.8 a nice 98-340/4 (before crop factor)... plus if you get the canon one, you keep the autofocus too.

03/12/2009 11:29:15 AM · #10

Autofocus will work at all lengths on the 2.8 with the teleconvertor but not the 4.0? Do you need IS for the autofocus to still work?

thanks
Shane

Originally posted by Manic:

Don't forget about the 1.4x teleconvertor, which makes that 70-200/2.8 a nice 98-340/4 (before crop factor)... plus if you get the canon one, you keep the autofocus too.

03/12/2009 11:35:08 AM · #11

Originally posted by Manic:

Don't forget about the 1.4x teleconvertor, which makes that 70-200/2.8 a nice 98-340/4 (before crop factor)... plus if you get the canon one, you keep the autofocus too.

Actually a 70-200 w/ the 1.4x is a 98-280/-1 stop. with 2x it 140-400/-2 stops. The 40D will not autofocus with any lens whose max aperture is narrower than 5.6, you need a 1 series body for that, adn even then, I think only the center focus point works.

I used the 1.4x with my 70-200/4.0 with great results, turning it into a 70-200/5.6. Using the 2x would turn my lens into a 140-400/8.0, with no AF.

Max aperture (the smallest # possible), dictates whether AF works. IS is irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2009-03-12 11:37:12.

03/12/2009 11:37:19 AM · #12

Thanks, that's what I needed to know.

Shane

Originally posted by Five_Seat:

Originally posted by Manic:
Don't forget about the 1.4x teleconvertor, which makes that 70-200/2.8 a nice 98-340/4 (before crop factor)... plus if you get the canon one, you keep the autofocus too.

Actually a 70-200 w/ the 1.4x is a 98-280/-1 stop. with 2x it 140-400/-2 stops. The 40D will not autofocus with any lens whose max aperture is greater than 5.6, you need a 1 series body for that, adn even then, I think only the center focus point works.

I used the 1.4x with my 70-200/4.0 with great results, turning it into a 70-200/5.6. Using the 2x would turn my lens into a 140-400/8.0, with no AF.

Max aperture (the smallest # possible), dictates whether AF works. IS is irrelevant.

03/12/2009 11:39:54 AM · #13

In my post I messed up aperture vocab. It is now correct. A smaller f/number is a wider aperture. narrower apertures are larger f/numbers. Sorry for the potential confusion.

My post is corrected.

03/12/2009 05:16:02 PM · #14

The only other question I have is will the 4.0 L without IS give me really good bokeh? I know they are both great lens but if the bokeh is really different I would like to know. I want to do photography (at times) where the ring of a bride is in focus and the bride is not. Will the 4.0 non IS give me the bokeh to do that? I hope this makes sense to everyone but this is the best way for me to explain what I'm looking for and of course I want to save as much money as I can. If the 4.0 L IS will do this I'd be happy with that.

thanks
Shane

brownsm

Canon EOS-5D

03/12/2009 05:26:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by stultsphoto:

taking a shot 10 ft away from your subject, the DOF is:

at 70 mm: f4 - 0.93 ft, f2.8 - 0.65 ft
at 135 mm: f4 - 0.24 ft, f2.8 - 0.17 ft
at 200 mm: f4 - 0.11 ft, f2.8 - 0.08 ft

is that difference worth it or necessary? granted this is not a measure of bokeh, but merely depth of field since you asked about focus

Message edited by author 2009-03-12 17:27:15.

03/12/2009 05:34:24 PM · #16

I'm almost positive that more established photographers on this site would say that the 2.8/IS version is indispensible at weddings, where you have to get the shot.

It sounds like you will be doing a lot of outdoor stuff and/or wedding stuff. I think you should splurge and go for the 2.8/IS. Good glass always outlives good bodies, and eventually, you will make the cost of the lens back.

My $.02

03/12/2009 05:35:40 PM · #17

thanks brownsm, I'm new with this part of it. Does the DOF tell how close the next item is that will be out of focus or how the bokeh is affected? Thanks for helping me understand.

thanks
Shane

Originally posted by brownsm:

Originally posted by stultsphoto:
The only other question I have is will the 4.0 L without IS give me really good bokeh? I know they are both great lens but if the bokeh is really different I would like to know. I want to do photography (at times) where the ring of a bride is in focus and the bride is not. Will the 4.0 non IS give me the bokeh to do that? I hope this makes sense to everyone but this is the best way for me to explain what I'm looking for and of course I want to save as much money as I can. If the 4.0 L IS will do this I'd be happy with that.

thanks
Shane

taking a shot 10 ft away from your subject, the DOF is:

at 70 mm: f4 - 0.93 ft, f2.8 - 0.65 ft
at 135 mm: f4 - 0.24 ft, f2.8 - 0.17 ft
at 200 mm: f4 - 0.11 ft, f2.8 - 0.08 ft

is that difference worth it or necessary? granted this is not a measure of bokeh, but merely depth of field since you asked about focus

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/12/2009 05:54:40 PM · #18

Bokeh is a somewhat intangible thing. It relies on some of the more specific specifications of the lens like how many blades the aperture has (more, like 8, produce more "circular" out of focus ares) and the quality of the glass elements themselves.

DOF is more quantifiable. In

brownsm's example, it you had a tape measure projecting from your camera, level with your sensor, at 70mm (with the 4.0) if you take a photo focusing on the 10ft mark of the tape measure, everything from 9.525ft to 10.475ft will in focus. note: the difference of those two numbers is the depth of field, by definition.

Message edited by author 2009-03-12 17:55:20.

jlanoue

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/12/2009 06:13:21 PM · #19

Hi Shane,

>>I have really wanted to get some quality glass and I think that this is a good chance to
>>get some of the best. Anything else I need to know about these lens or others that would
>>help would be great.

This is completely different perspective from all the other posts here, but it's an additional datapoint. I do a different kind of photography, astrophotography, and I was looking to add a 200mm piece of glass to my collection, so I tested the f2.8 IS 70-200mm and f4.0 non IS 70-200mm lenses (because those were the ones that my circle of friends had) and for sharpness and clarity across the WHOLE image, the f4.0 lens won hands down. I got slight chromatic abberation and coma on the edges when shooting stars with the 2.8 IS lens, while the f4.0 non IS lens is tack sharp across the entire image. Here's an example at 200mm f/4:

and an example at 70mm:

Unfortunately, I don't still have the test shots I took with the 2.8 lens. Would this ever impact you in any negative way? I doubt it, but I LOVE my f/4 lens for both day and nighttime use, the one place it falls short is (obviously) fast action photography.

john

03/12/2009 06:25:16 PM · #20

WOW! that's all I can say. I would love to know how to do those type of photographs.

Thanks
Shane

Originally posted by jlanoue:

03/12/2009 06:25:57 PM · #21

Thanks for the info on these lens. I think that I'm going to go with the non IS 4. One reason is the price and the other is that the 4.0 non IS is a very sharp lens and will do (i think) everything I need and more. I hope I'm making the right choice.

Thanks to everyone for all of your help and if anyone has anything else to add that my change my mind please feel free to post it.

thanks
Shane

LVicari

Canon EOS-50D

03/12/2009 06:44:27 PM · #22

Man, I have been trying to get my hands on a used F4 non Is and it is hard to find. No one wants to give them up. Not sure if the IS is worth double the price(I guess I will just use the poor man's IS.. burst mode). Good Luck with your purchase.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/12/2009 07:04:40 PM · #23

From what I can tell the price difference in the used I've priced and the new are very close. Where do most people try to find used....ebay or is there somewhere better.

thanks
Shane

Originally posted by LVicari:

jlanoue

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/12/2009 07:26:52 PM · #24

Originally posted by stultsphoto:

WOW! that's all I can say. I would love to know how to do those type of photographs.

Thanks
Shane

Originally posted by jlanoue:
Hi Shane,

>>I have really wanted to get some quality glass and I think that this is a good chance to
>>get some of the best. Anything else I need to know about these lens or others that would
>>help would be great.

This is completely different perspective from all the other posts here, but it's an additional datapoint. I do a different kind of photography, astrophotography, and I was looking to add a 200mm piece of glass to my collection, so I tested the f2.8 IS 70-200mm and f4.0 non IS 70-200mm lenses (because those were the ones that my circle of friends had) and for sharpness and clarity across the WHOLE image, the f4.0 lens won hands down. I got slight chromatic abberation and coma on the edges when shooting stars with the 2.8 IS lens, while the f4.0 non IS lens is tack sharp across the entire image. Here's an example at 200mm f/4:

and an example at 70mm:

Unfortunately, I don't still have the test shots I took with the 2.8 lens. Would this ever impact you in any negative way? I doubt it, but I LOVE my f/4 lens for both day and nighttime use, the one place it falls short is (obviously) fast action photography.

john

Hi Shane,
Thanks, believe it or not, this type of photography, sometimes referred to as "piggy back" photography, is not all that difficult. I have a "how to" tutorial on my website. However, that's much more difficult than piggyback, with piggyback you just mount the camera and lens to the telescope mount, polar align, and hit the shutter release cable, it's that easy.

john

LVicari

Canon EOS-50D