Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

canon 70-200F4L vs 70-200F2.8

  • 06-04-2009 10:36am
    #1
    john1963
    Closed Accounts Posts: 271 ✭✭


    Hi folks, i am looking for a lens to take photos of my children outdoors mainly. i hear great reviews of both of these lenses but would appreciate your advice. Obviously the 2.8 is a lot more expensive but the f4 is lighter. i would like to take photos with a shallow depth of field so that might be a consideration. i am not fussed about IS because i have the 17-85is and that is perfect for indoor shots. any advice would be great


Comments

  • #2
    Ricky91t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,281 ✭✭✭Ricky91t


    Depends really,The f/4 is meant to be sharper but that's just on some reviews i've read,The fact it's lighter will be handy if you want to go for long walk with them etc.One thing i've noticed with f/2.8 is if you forget it's set to f/2.8 a person slightly behind the main subject will be just out of focus,But then again it creates great isolation around the subject,If you're happy to spend the cash on a 70-200 then the weight is the only issue.The f.2.8 weighs 1310g and the f/4 is nearly half at 710g


    Do you shoot anything else?Sport or wildlife?They might also be the deciding factor


  • #3
    john1963
    Closed Accounts Posts: 271 ✭✭john1963


    Ricky91t wrote: »
    Depends really,The f/4 is meant to be sharper but that's just on some reviews i've read,The fact it's lighter will be handy if you want to go for long walk with them etc.One thing i've noticed with f/2.8 is if you forget it's set to f/2.8 a person slightly behind the main subject will be just out of focus,But then again it creates great isolation around the subject,If you're happy to spend the cash on a 70-200 then the weight is the only issue.The f.2.8 weighs 1310g and the f/4 is nearly half at 710g


    Do you shoot anything else?Sport or wildlife?They might also be the deciding factor

    i do the odd wedding , but not sport etc


  • #4
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    I have the 2.8 and it's great for motorsport. Get in touch with http://www.imagesupplysystems.com/ and rent one of each and see how you like them. They might also have a 2nd hand one for when you decide to buy.

    P.S - for anyone looking to rent, these guys are a lot cheaper and better than Conns!


  • #5
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    A small prime would give you a smaller dof and is lighter and cheaper


  • #6
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    If it's for outdoors the f4 version should suffice and like Ricky said while both lenses have fantastic IQ the f4 is meant to pip the 2.8.
    I own the f2.8 and yes it is heavy, would love the f4 version too.
    For sports 2.8 obviously is the better if that extra shutterspeed/light is required.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    pippatee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 164 ✭✭pippatee


    I don't know if you have considered it, but I recently picked up the 70-200mm 2.8 from Sigma ... got to say that I love it already ...


  • #8
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/page6.asp
    Is the important page.


  • #9
    Tactical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Tactical


    Given a choice (and the budget of course...) I'd choose the L-series glass every time.


  • #10
    pippatee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 164 ✭✭pippatee


    Tactical wrote: »
    Given a choice (and the budget of course...) I'd choose the L-series glass every time.

    Me too ... unfortunately ... I wasn't given the budget :P


  • #11
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    85mm f1.8 is a superb portrait lens and very small but with very quick focus and comes in quite cheap, just means you got to zoom with the feet.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Valentia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    I have the Sigma 70-200 too. It was one of the first lenses that I bought with the 10D and it is a lovely lens. Since then I have got a few L lenses and they are way ahead in sharpness. If I could afford it I would get the 2.8L.

    I think if I had to start all over again I would build up a set of prime lenses with wide apertures.


Advertisement