Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: canon 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS

  1. #1
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    62
    Threads
    37
    Thank You Posts

    Default canon 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS

    Hello,

    I'm planning to buy a zoom lens (the canon 70-200). But I'm deciding what to buy the f/4 or the f/2.8 version.

    This lens is for general wildlife photography ( I already have a 300mm plus a 1.4x).

    I'm about to go for the f/4 version, but I'm having some doubts because I shoot mostly mammals, many times with low light conditions.

    Do I really need to use the 2.8 or 3.5 apertures for mammals? isn't f/4 the minimal aperture to maintain all the animal on focus? Is it possible to photograph a Deer with f2.8 and mantain all the animal on focus?

    Money is important, that is because I prefer the f/4 version, but I'm afraid I will loose something.
    Need some help here.

    best regards,
    paulo anjo

  2. #2
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Corning, NY
    Posts
    2,507
    Threads
    208
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I went through the same decision process and have decided on the 2.8 IS II. I will buy after the first of the year. The 2.8 will allow faster AF in low light and on my 1 series body will AF with a 2X TC. I know the IQ will not be quite as good with the 2 X but it will give me 400 mm for those times I need it and have to travel light.

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    118
    Threads
    48
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The 2.8 IS II is the better lens, and will take a 2x teleconverter. I guess my question is whether you'll be carrying both your 300 and the 70-200 at the same time, especially on two bodies? If so I'd go for the f/4 to save weight, and since the 300 + 1.4x will give you the reach. However if you're only going to carry one lens at a time, then I'd pick the f/2.8 IS II since you'll want maximum quality from a single lens and the ability to add a stronger teleconverter. I'd also seriously consider the 100-400 instead, if you're willing to lose a bit at the wide end. It's a **** good lens for not that much money, and at least some copies of the 100-400 are sharper than at least some copies of the 300mm f/4 (though the reverse is also true).
    Last edited by Elliotte Rusty Harold; 11-26-2010 at 06:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics