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 70-200-f4 vs f2.8

  • 19-11-2009 1:49pm
    #1
    john1963
    Closed Accounts Posts: 271 ✭✭


    hi folks, i have the canon L series f4 and was thinking of selling it to get the L series f2.8 both are the non is models. is there a significant difference? was thinking the 2.8 would be sharper and with more background blur. any advice would be appreciated


Comments

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


    Not sharper but better background blur, also double the weight so wheras you can get away with the f4 as a walkaround the 2.8 you can't.


  • #3
    Captain Flaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,834 ✭✭✭Captain Flaps


    AnimalRights wrote: »
    Not sharper but better background blur, also double the weight so wheras you can get away with the f4 as a walkaround the 2.8 you can't.

    I've shot gigs before on the 2.8IS with lovely sharp results. It just depends on how well you support it.


  • #4
    oshead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭oshead


    You gain 1 stop of light and more bokeh at one setting on the lense. Is that worth all the extra money it'll cost?


  • #5
    PabD
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭PabD


    Is the main reason you were thinking of changing to achieve more bokeh or is it to have a faster lens for low light?

    I have the F4 non is and have mounted it on a 400d a lot of the time and sometimes it can bug me as I don’t like pushing the ISO to far, however when I mount it on the 5D MK2 it becomes a real pleasure to use as there is more room to play with regarding bumping up the ISO while retaining quality.

    I don’t think I could justify the extra cost as I have the use of higher ISO settings and I find it doesn’t limit me when mounted on a better body. If you want more bokeh though tis a different story altogether. :D


  • #6
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    get a lend of a 2.8 and try it out.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,468 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    Boss is a pro photographer and I was debating the same thing with him...
    He says image quality is better on the f4 than the f2.8 which reviewers say as well.
    However he was saying for what I want it for (some sports etc) he says it's not worth my while stepping up.
    He uses his for weddings etc so he definitely needs the 2.8.


  • #8
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    I would say get the f2.8 as most of the time in Ireland its overcast and you end up shooting at f4 on an f4 lens. Dont forget an f2.8 can shoot at f4 and be very sharp whereas the opposite isnt true


  • #9
    john1963
    Closed Accounts Posts: 271 ✭✭john1963


    what is bokeh?


  • #10
    Slidinginfinity
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Slidinginfinity


    john1963 wrote: »
    what is bokeh?

    Bokeh is


  • #11
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    Captain Flaps wrote: »
    I've shot gigs before on the 2.8IS with lovely sharp results. It just depends on how well you support it.
    I've shot gigs too, I said walkaround lens...ie carrying it all day. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    FX Meister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,217 ✭✭✭FX Meister


    I have no problem carrying the 2.8IS around with me. It gets tiresome when I carry it with some of my other lenses but just it and my 5D is fine. I like the faster aperature and IS when shooting 200 hand held. I've gotten really good shots at gigs with it too.


  • #13
    squareballoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭squareballoon


    I have the 2.8 non IS and love it but my puny girly arms do find it heavy to carry around so I don't use it as much as I'd like to. The problem I find with is that the 2.8 would be lovely for indoor portraits but you have to get so far back that it's generally not feasible.


  • #14
    MartMax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭MartMax


    If u have the money, i think it's worth going for a f2.8.

    Personally, I'd really appreciate the IS, my hands would probably be shakey holding this 1.5kg glass all day. that's my experience with 24-70 which is only 1kg. i might be wrong, the IS version is also weather sealed.

    Having said that I love the f4 that I had, no doubt abt the sharpness but it was also convenience to carry around for travelling.

    FYI. As per Kerso's pricing there's a difference of 350 pound btwn f2.8 IS and and non-IS version.


Advertisement