Other than the obvious, what is the performance difference between 70-200/2.8 and 4.0?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Other than the obvious - price, size and weight, what is the real performance difference between 70-200/2.8 and 4.0? The 4.0 also focuses closer I think. Has anyone done a side by side comparison?

Appreciate all responses....thanks and happy new year.

Michael Hintlian

please visit my website: http://www.hintlian.com

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), December 31, 2001

Answers

With the 70-200 f/2.8 lens you are going to get more a background blur with shooting portraits that you would with the f/4. also, you use a faster shutter speed with the f/2.8 than you would witha f/4, possibly avoiding a blurred photo, especially in low light. Also, you can use the teleconverters on both, but with the 2.8 you get an f/5.6 with the 2x coverter as opposed to the f/8 you get with the f/4 lens. I know the cost is high, but it depends on what you want. I've owned both and like the f/2.8 better. I hope this helps.

-- Carlos Marrero (los@door.net), December 31, 2001.

Racked out to 200mm and focused at 15 feet, the f/2.8 lens will give you 3.3 inches DOF, while the f/4 version doles out a massive 4.7 inches.

DOF calculator

-- Colin Miller (miller.photos@att.net), December 31, 2001.


Which differences are obvious, and which are not?
Price, maximum aperture, weight, size, filter diameter, tripod mount ring, optional image stabilizer, autofocus operation with teleconvertors?

Refer to the specifications and MTF charts at http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/, as well as the comparison table at the Canon website. For a better lens calculator, try this

-- Julian Loke (elan7e-owner@yahoogroups.com), December 31, 2001.


First, thanks for the responses so far. I guess I must re-state the question more clearly. I am looking for the performance difference between these two lenses regardless of the "obvious" size, max. aperture (which relates to DOF), etc. So...what have you found about the performance difference between these two?

Again, thanks...and looking forward.

Michael Hintlian

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), December 31, 2001.


Answer: Both lenses are EXCELLENT and top of the line performers in my opinion.

-- Jake F. (JakeF@nowhere.net), December 31, 2001.


Barring extremes of sample variation, I think the optical quality of the two white bazookas is the same.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), December 31, 2001.

I'll second Jake's answer. I don't think you can choose between these lenses based on differences in optical performance. They are both phenomenally sharp and optically excellent. If you need the speed, get the 2.8L. If not, get the 4L and save yourself 600 grams (1310g vs. 705g) and 570 dollars ($1130 versus $560, B&H after rebate). If money and weight aren't a factor, get the 2.8L IS.

I have the 4L and love it. I didn't need the extra speed since I use it for landscapes, static objects, etc. and I enjoy hiking and traveling with it so it's light weight is greatly appreciated. With the extra money I saved I bought an EF 85/1.8 for portraits. With only way you could make this lens better is by giving it IS.

-- PeterP (pphan01@hotmail.com), December 31, 2001.


Again, thanks all.

Jake...thanks, your response really helped. I didn't know if there was a performance difference, and, it appears there isn't.

Peter...I must say I differ, if there was a performance difference I would have gone the direction of the better performance. The weight/price and other cosmetics are not the issue for me, performance is. I am happy to learn they are both close to identical in on the film performance. Your reply is appreciated in any case.

Happy new year.

Michael Hintlian

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), January 01, 2002.


I have the F4L.

What I have HEARD (take with pinch of salt as appropriate) is that the two lenses are as good as one another. I have heard one or two say that the F4 is marginally slightly better. I've certainly NOT heard anyone say that the F4 is worse.

I just reckon on the two lenses being the same, one smaller, lighter, cheaper, and the other a stop faster. Certainly the F4 lens is NOT an optical compromise in comparison to the F2.8.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.


I have the f/2.8 model. Other than the comments made previously, I have to mention the use of Canon's Extenders. I use the 1.4x on this lens a lot of the time (98-280mm f/4 equivalent). It gives up very little sharpness and autofocus is still fast and accurate. Used with a 2x, it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 equivalent that still would be acceptable in sharpness and would continue to autofocus. The f/4 model, while having a great reputation for performance on its own, would not be quite as useful with the extenders since it would lose an extra stop.

Other than the application of extenders, I consider any performance differences to be marginal.

-- Lee Shively (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 03, 2002.



Just to add to that...

The F4 works very well with the 1.4X TC also. I don't have a 2X TC, so I have not tried that combo (nor would I really bother...I have a 300 F4L IS also).

Basically, both lenses make fine 98-280s with the 1.4X TC, both respectively a stop slower than their original speeds.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 03, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ