F30POST
F30POST
2012-2015 BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum (F30 / F32) | F30POST > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Photography/Videography > Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or 24-70mm f/2.8
proTUNING Freaks
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-01-2009, 10:01 AM   #45
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger View Post
hmmm maybe I will get the f4 IS then... just gonna suck when I know I coulda had the 2.8 IS and been even 2 stops lower for a better shot.

I just don't think I wanna fork over the coin for it... I'm not even worried about the weight.
We think the body is expensive, but then we start buying lenses and...

What's your current thinking about a 35 or 50mm prime?? I did a little looking at the reviews for the 1.2mm L and saw a lot of disappointment in the sharpness. Another thing interesting is to go to Flickr and look at the "Group" for the lens that you're interested in, like the 1.2, 1.4 or 1.8 and pixel peep at the images. Also, look at the EXIF data. I had a hard time finding an image shot at 1.2. Most were at 2.8 and many of the ones wider than f2.0 were soft. Also, as was mentioned yesterday, a 35mm may be a better "normal" prime choice for a crop-body.

Dave
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 11:05 AM   #46
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon@karbonwerke View Post
for a 70-200 i would definitely want IS...all the more so if getting the heavier 2.8 version. when shooting handheld all day with the 2.8IS, the weight does start getting to you eventually.

if i were to shoot on a crop body, i would definitely be using the 17-55 2.8IS as my main lens. i'm still waiting for canon to release a 20-70 2.8LII with IS
well i think the 16-35 2.8 L is just as good, even if it doesn't go up to 55, I my 50mm and if I have a 70-200 then I'm not missing out on much range.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 11:09 AM   #47
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
We think the body is expensive, but then we start buying lenses and...

What's your current thinking about a 35 or 50mm prime?? I did a little looking at the reviews for the 1.2mm L and saw a lot of disappointment in the sharpness. Another thing interesting is to go to Flickr and look at the "Group" for the lens that you're interested in, like the 1.2, 1.4 or 1.8 and pixel peep at the images. Also, look at the EXIF data. I had a hard time finding an image shot at 1.2. Most were at 2.8 and many of the ones wider than f2.0 were soft. Also, as was mentioned yesterday, a 35mm may be a better "normal" prime choice for a crop-body.

Dave
yeah i did the same last night. gonna get the 1.4 50mm instead and save some money.

I GUESS now I'd have enough to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but since everyone thinks its so damn heavy maybe I dont need the 2.8 on that one and I'll just settle for the f4 IS.

I'm not gonna bother with a 35mm prime since I have the 16-35mm 2.8 L

I don't really think I need anything more than 3 nice lenses, 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 01:39 PM   #48
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger View Post
yeah i did the same last night. gonna get the 1.4 50mm instead and save some money.

I GUESS now I'd have enough to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but since everyone thinks its so damn heavy maybe I dont need the 2.8 on that one and I'll just settle for the f4 IS.

I'm not gonna bother with a 35mm prime since I have the 16-35mm 2.8 L

I don't really think I need anything more than 3 nice lenses, 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm.
Very good plan, my man.

Two out of three are Ls that are amongst the best Ls made. Those will serve you for a long time, even if you go full frame later. The 50mm doesn't really suffer much vs. its L equivalent and costs WAY less. If you find yourself going to the 50mm or constantly running the zoom at 35mm, then you can think of another L, after the budget recovers.

Dave
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 02:13 PM   #49
TWiTCHY
Colonel
TWiTCHY's Avatar
United_States
280
Rep
2,521
Posts

Drives: '13 AW E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WA

iTrader: (6)

Has anyone checked Adorama and BH in a while? Adorama no longer lists the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, only the non-IS version, and BH just won't load the page...I can only find the lens on Amazon but they're charging full price without the rebate. What's going on?

EDIT: Scratch that, BH is working now.

Last edited by TWiTCHY; 08-01-2009 at 03:18 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 04:55 PM   #50
PNF
Colonel
PNF's Avatar
Taiwan
136
Rep
2,358
Posts

Drives: 15' YMB F80 M3
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wayne, PA / Taipei

iTrader: (4)

Uber

Good call on the f4 IS and 50mm f1.4. I am very sure you will love this combo while not breaking your wallet as much!!

+1 on the IS part. You really do need the IS for any glass that weights 1.5 lb or more, let around one that weighs 3+ lbs (f2.8)


I can afford the f2.8 IS 70-200 (and it was on sale from a reputable ebay seller, after cashback and free shipping, I could have jumped on a 70-200 f2.8 IS for only $1350 shipped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt get it just because, I KNOW I WILL NOT be bring that lens all the time with me due to weight.. I mean, I would love to have it with me when I go to some baseball games or tennis (i.e. US Open coming up).. but I'd probably leave it at home, simply because it is just too heavy to carry around all the time.

Like I said, when you use a tele glass, you probably be using it outdoors, and if it is outdoors, f4 usually is sufficient and not to mention, f4 IS is one of the sharpest zoom glass Canon offer if not the sharpest IMO.


As for prime glass, 35mm f1.4 is just pure god.. I was testing it out at B&H just a couple weeks ago... and even at f1.4 with only 400 ISO, man, the image is crisp and the focus is fast and accurate without too much noise.

I will have this 35 f1.4 in my collection some day!!
__________________
2015 F80 Fully loaded (minus the CCB) YMB M3 / Individual Amaro Brown
BBS | KW | Vorsteiner | IND | Akrapovic | BMW CF Performance Interior | Brembo | Eibach

2008 E92 335i (sold)
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 05:05 PM   #51
Vudoo4u2
Night Sh1ft
Vudoo4u2's Avatar
172
Rep
2,950
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: It's bobsled time

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 BMW E90 M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger View Post
yeah i did the same last night. gonna get the 1.4 50mm instead and save some money.

I GUESS now I'd have enough to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but since everyone thinks its so damn heavy maybe I dont need the 2.8 on that one and I'll just settle for the f4 IS.

I'm not gonna bother with a 35mm prime since I have the 16-35mm 2.8 L

I don't really think I need anything more than 3 nice lenses, 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm.
hey clown, youve tried the 70-200 2.8 IS L at the meet I came to. It was mine! you know what it weighs!
__________________
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. ― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 05:37 PM   #52
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
The 70-200 f4L IS is one of Canon's very sharpest lenses, bar none. Being light is a bonus, not a primary reason to buy it. My criteria is sharpness first, but then a strong seconds is "will it suit my needs?", then comes price, etc. In this case the f4 does the trick and I don't miss the extra f-stops of the 2.8.

PNF, I just don't understand leaving your 70-200 home when you go to a baseball game or tennis match, even if it's heavy. That's one of the situations where it'll shine, although you'll need really good seats to fill the frame. (400 mm and more is really the way to go for sports). For something like that I wouldn't take my whole bag usually but I'd take the 70-200. You can sit with it in your lap most of the time and it's not really that tiring.

More and more lately I take a camera to almost every "event" I go to. I'm playing a concert in a park this evening and I'll take the 5D2 with the 24-105 f4L. I've left it home twice this year and kicked myself both times becaue of the beautiful sunset that I missed as we played. (I take shots during my rests and these very informal concerts.) I can't even think of going to the US Open and leaving the camera home.

Dave
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 07:49 PM   #53
uofmtiger
Second Lieutenant
11
Rep
241
Posts

Drives:
Join Date: Aug 2008

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
As for prime glass, 35mm f1.4 is just pure god
My dad has a bunch of primes and I believe this one is his favorite. It is super-sharp and works in low light as good as any other lens I have seen. I want one, too.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 09:36 PM   #54
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2 View Post
hey clown, youve tried the 70-200 2.8 IS L at the meet I came to. It was mine! you know what it weighs!
yeah i never said I didn't but remember i only had it for like 10 min before we got harassed by the po-po's.

I just wanted to know what its like walking around with it for 2 hrs or more... i think the F4 IS is gonna be fine
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 09:39 PM   #55
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
The 70-200 f4L IS is one of Canon's very sharpest lenses, bar none. Being light is a bonus, not a primary reason to buy it. My criteria is sharpness first, but then a strong seconds is "will it suit my needs?", then comes price, etc. In this case the f4 does the trick and I don't miss the extra f-stops of the 2.8.

PNF, I just don't understand leaving your 70-200 home when you go to a baseball game or tennis match, even if it's heavy. That's one of the situations where it'll shine, although you'll need really good seats to fill the frame. (400 mm and more is really the way to go for sports). For something like that I wouldn't take my whole bag usually but I'd take the 70-200. You can sit with it in your lap most of the time and it's not really that tiring.

More and more lately I take a camera to almost every "event" I go to. I'm playing a concert in a park this evening and I'll take the 5D2 with the 24-105 f4L. I've left it home twice this year and kicked myself both times becaue of the beautiful sunset that I missed as we played. (I take shots during my rests and these very informal concerts.) I can't even think of going to the US Open and leaving the camera home.

Dave
That might be true at Rockies games but out here in Chicago, you get shit spilled all over your ass. I think I would rather bring something a tiny bit smaller to stash away in my bag or at least more mobile to get it out of the way of drunken bleacher bums.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 10:00 PM   #56
Vudoo4u2
Night Sh1ft
Vudoo4u2's Avatar
172
Rep
2,950
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: It's bobsled time

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 BMW E90 M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger View Post
yeah i never said I didn't but remember i only had it for like 10 min before we got harassed by the po-po's.

I just wanted to know what its like walking around with it for 2 hrs or more... i think the F4 IS is gonna be fine
I'll say, that I walked in downtown NYC from 90th to 18th, and back to 55th with the 70-200 F2.8 IS/L around my neck, and I was feelin fine

dont let the weight be a factor

you'll kick yourself later when you realize that in low light, unless youre hauling around your tripod everywhere, youre going to really love the 2.8 and the bokeh it produces. Its amazing imo...

forgot to add...

1) if you get the macro extension tube, you will have an F2.8 IS/L macro lens, canon doesnt have very many IS macro lenses (and the tube is so cheap relatively)
2) if you get the 1.4x magnifier add-on, then youll have a 280mm length to go to, with IS, and F4....the same cannot be said for the F4 lens, which if you add this on, youre giving up low light ability pretty much completely sans tripod. (so..on a canon crop sensor....70*1.6*1.4 & 200*1.6*1.4= 156.8mm-448mm F4 IS /L....for about 150 bucks more....thats unreal imo, thats one helluva telephoto<<<THIS REASON ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU WANT THE 2.8 over the 4.0

I went over this question for myself a thousand times, and if it wasnt for the cost, I wouldve never even questioned. The 2.8 is as sharp as the F4 IS/L @ F4, but it just has that extra wonderful 2.8 stop which (while very sharp, is not AS sharp as the super sharp F4)....but its being supremely nitpicky...its an amazing lens you wont ever have to upgrade (well...for a while @ least)
__________________
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. ― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 10:28 PM   #57
jon@karbonwerke
Second Lieutenant
jon@karbonwerke's Avatar
7
Rep
226
Posts

Drives: 335i E90
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (1)

fwiw, the 35L stays on my 5D 90% of the time
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 12:05 AM   #58
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2 View Post
I'll say, that I walked in downtown NYC from 90th to 18th, and back to 55th with the 70-200 F2.8 IS/L around my neck, and I was feelin fine

dont let the weight be a factor

you'll kick yourself later when you realize that in low light, unless youre hauling around your tripod everywhere, youre going to really love the 2.8 and the bokeh it produces. Its amazing imo...

forgot to add...

1) if you get the macro extension tube, you will have an F2.8 IS/L macro lens, canon doesnt have very many IS macro lenses (and the tube is so cheap relatively)
2) if you get the 1.4x magnifier add-on, then youll have a 280mm length to go to, with IS, and F4....the same cannot be said for the F4 lens, which if you add this on, youre giving up low light ability pretty much completely sans tripod. (so..on a canon crop sensor....70*1.6*1.4 & 200*1.6*1.4= 156.8mm-448mm F4 IS /L....for about 150 bucks more....thats unreal imo, thats one helluva telephoto<<<THIS REASON ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU WANT THE 2.8 over the 4.0

I went over this question for myself a thousand times, and if it wasnt for the cost, I wouldve never even questioned. The 2.8 is as sharp as the F4 IS/L @ F4, but it just has that extra wonderful 2.8 stop which (while very sharp, is not AS sharp as the super sharp F4)....but its being supremely nitpicky...its an amazing lens you wont ever have to upgrade (well...for a while @ least)
good point about the macro and the 1.4x
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 12:22 AM   #59
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2 View Post
...
forgot to add...

1) if you get the macro extension tube, you will have an F2.8 IS/L macro lens, canon doesnt have very many IS macro lenses (and the tube is so cheap relatively)
2) if you get the 1.4x magnifier add-on, then youll have a 280mm length to go to, with IS, and F4....the same cannot be said for the F4 lens, which if you add this on, youre giving up low light ability pretty much completely sans tripod. (so..on a canon crop sensor....70*1.6*1.4 & 200*1.6*1.4= 156.8mm-448mm F4 IS /L....for about 150 bucks more....thats unreal imo, thats one helluva telephoto<<<THIS REASON ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU WANT THE 2.8 over the 4.0

I went over this question for myself a thousand times, and if it wasnt for the cost, I wouldve never even questioned. The 2.8 is as sharp as the F4 IS/L @ F4, but it just has that extra wonderful 2.8 stop which (while very sharp, is not AS sharp as the super sharp F4)....but its being supremely nitpicky...its an amazing lens you wont ever have to upgrade (well...for a while @ least)

Well now, you've forced me to call bull shit. I use a 25mm extension tube and a 1.4 TC with my f4 all the time. In fact, I took around 100 macros today with the 70-200 f4 plus the ET.

The f4 is significantly sharper than the 2.8, so when you put that ET or TC on your not amplifying distortion.

Dave
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 12:33 AM   #60
Vudoo4u2
Night Sh1ft
Vudoo4u2's Avatar
172
Rep
2,950
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: It's bobsled time

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 BMW E90 M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Well now, you've forced me to call bull shit. I use a 25mm extension tube and a 1.4 TC with my f4 all the time. In fact, I took around 100 macros today with the 70-200 f4 plus the ET.

The f4 is significantly sharper than the 2.8, so when you put that ET or TC on your not amplifying distortion.

Dave
never said the extension or the 1.4tc cause distortion...(if my long winded paragraph made it sound so...it was unintentional)

I was saying that when using the 1.4TC, you must give up a stop automatically, so starting from 2.8 and going to 4, is amazing (b/c you have a ridiculous telephoto thats F4)if you started with F4, and lost a stop to F 5.6, youre pretty much giving up the ability to shoot hand held in low light without huge iso bumps @ F5.6

as far as the macro tube, it works on both 2.8 and 4 w/o giving up a stop...so theres no difference really there, but the bokeh when you do macro shots is really nice with 2.8 vs. 4

its the 1.4 TC that has the difference b/c you give up a stop

and the F4 is not SIGNIFICANTLY sharper, its pixel picky sharper, but we'll see whos sharper when the lights go down
__________________
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. ― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 12:47 AM   #61
BMW F22
Major General
BMW F22's Avatar
United_States
1634
Rep
9,579
Posts

Drives: ///M235i
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bay Area

iTrader: (8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2 View Post
never said the extension or the 1.4tc cause distortion...(if my long winded paragraph made it sound so...it was unintentional)

I was saying that when using the 1.4TC, you must give up a stop automatically, so starting from 2.8 and going to 4, is amazing (b/c you have a ridiculous telephoto thats F4)if you started with F4, and lost a stop to F 5.6, youre pretty much giving up the ability to shoot hand held in low light without huge iso bumps @ F5.6

as far as the macro tube, it works on both 2.8 and 4 w/o giving up a stop...so theres no difference really there, but the bokeh when you do macro shots is really nice with 2.8 vs. 4

its the 1.4 TC that has the difference b/c you give up a stop

and the F4 is not SIGNIFICANTLY sharper, its pixel picky sharper,
but we'll see whos sharper when the lights go down
Agreed. It really isn't that much sharper at all. It's been tested over and over again and the the general consensus is that unless you're pixel peeping, the difference isn't that noticeable. There's also rumors of a new 70-200 2.8 IS coming out which should incoporate the flourite element and a newer IS system. Of course it's going to be quite a bit more than the current one so if you (OP) can afford it, you should go for the 2.8 IS now.
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 01:08 AM   #62
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2 View Post
never said the extension or the 1.4tc cause distortion...(if my long winded paragraph made it sound so...it was unintentional)

I was saying that when using the 1.4TC, you must give up a stop automatically, so starting from 2.8 and going to 4, is amazing (b/c you have a ridiculous telephoto thats F4)if you started with F4, and lost a stop to F 5.6, youre pretty much giving up the ability to shoot hand held in low light without huge iso bumps @ F5.6

as far as the macro tube, it works on both 2.8 and 4 w/o giving up a stop...so theres no difference really there, but the bokeh when you do macro shots is really nice with 2.8 vs. 4

its the 1.4 TC that has the difference b/c you give up a stop

and the F4 is not SIGNIFICANTLY sharper, its pixel picky sharper, but we'll see whos sharper when the lights go down
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, 5.6 ain't that slow with IS. My 400mm prime starts at 5.6 and then I hang the TC on that, with NO IS!! Of course I use a monopod with gimbal head when I get out at that far. At those focal lengths you really need a monopod or tripod. I've got both, but find that the mono usually does the trick, unless I'm doing HDR or long exposures.

I've attached an example of bokeh from today's adventures. I don't see anything wrong with it. (This is with the 25mm ET on the 70-200).

If you look at your images and one lens seems soft and the other seems sharp, that's significant. You don't need 300% blow ups to see these differences. I think the softness at 2.8 is worse than the noise caused by pushing the ISO an equivalent amount. Of course the 2.8 is sharper when you stop it down, but....why pay for it if you don't use it.

I think that most people don't need the 2.8. However, some will and they know who they are, but they'll constantly be in low light where they're willing to sacrifice a bit of sharpness (it's not horrible, by any stretch) to get the shots that they typically take.

Image taken with 70-200 f4 L IS at 144mm, f4 with an extension tube, 1/5000 sec., ISO 1250 and pushed .3-stop in processing.
Attached Images
 
__________________

Last edited by dcstep; 08-02-2009 at 09:37 AM..
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 01:54 AM   #63
Vudoo4u2
Night Sh1ft
Vudoo4u2's Avatar
172
Rep
2,950
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: It's bobsled time

iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 BMW E90 M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, 5.6 ain't that slow with IS. My 400mm prime starts at 5.6 and then I hang the TC on that, with NO IS!! Of course I use a monopod with gimbal head when I get out at that far. At those focal lengths you really need a monopod or tripod. I've got both, but find that the mono usually does the trick, unless I'm doing HDR or long exposures.

I've attached an example of bokeh from today's adventures. I don't see anything wrong with it. (This is with the 25mm ET on the 70-200).

If you look at your images and one lens seems soft and the other seems sharp, that's significant. You don't need 300% blow ups to see these differences. I think the softness at 2.8 is worse than the noise caused by pushing the ISO an equivalent amount. Of course the 2.8 is sharper when you stop it down, but....why pay for it if you don't use it.

I think that most people don't need the 2.8. However, some will and they know who they are, but they'll constantly be in low light where they're willing to sacrifice a bit of sharpness (it's not horrible, by any stretch) to get the shots that they typically take.
I mean I dont disagree with you...

bokeh on F4 isnt bad by any stretch

theres absolutely nothing wrong with the 70-200 F4 IS/L.its a fantastic lens

As far as sharpness, I have the 2.8 IS/L, and I have no issues with soft images @ 2.8. I even have indoor hockey photos (for which 2.8 is necessary) which I shot handheld from the stands, and theyre by no means soft.

I'm not sure if perhaps the softness you see when comparing the 2.8 and the 4 is a focusing issue, but Ive seen both, and I dont have any issue with the 2.8 wide open.

I wasnt arguing that the F4 is bad, I was just saying, losing 1 stop to F5.6 isnt exactly ideal low light range, F4 would be much easier, and sometimes there are situations where that stop will make a difference, and if you can afford the extra stop, why not? The below hockey shot wouldnt be possible without anything lower than ISO3200 if I didnt have the extra stop. And I know seth takes a lot of concert shots and indoor stuff, so I figured, low light is important to him.

but I love the bee shot

this was taken handheld F2.8 180mm ISO1600 1/400 shutter..
__________________
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. ― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 02:38 AM   #64
UdubBadger
Banned
No_Country
505
Rep
24,713
Posts

Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs

iTrader: (22)

Garage List
2004 BMW 330i ZHP  [4.75]
2011 135i  [3.73]
2008 328xi  [4.38]
ugh... back and forth with my decision... if I go 2.8 IS it's probably gonna be used cuz so I guess I should start lookin on FredMiranda.com
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 03:21 AM   #65
radiantm3
Apex Everything!
radiantm3's Avatar
United_States
753
Rep
4,379
Posts

Drives: 2007 Honda S2000, 2017 GT350
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Park, TX

iTrader: (6)

Garage List
2011 E92 M3  [4.67]
2014 BMW i3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by UdubBadger View Post
yeah i did the same last night. gonna get the 1.4 50mm instead and save some money.

I GUESS now I'd have enough to get the 70-200 2.8 IS but since everyone thinks its so damn heavy maybe I dont need the 2.8 on that one and I'll just settle for the f4 IS.

I'm not gonna bother with a 35mm prime since I have the 16-35mm 2.8 L

I don't really think I need anything more than 3 nice lenses, 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm.
That's pretty much my lens setup right now. 16-35/2.8, 50/1.2, 70-200/2.8. I also have a fisheye, but I don't use it for anything serious. My next lens on the list is the 85/1.2 and I think I'm done.
__________________
2011 E92 M3(Sold). 2007 Honda S2000 (Track Car). 2016 Cayman GT4 (Sold). 2017 Shelby GT350 (AKA Crowd Killer).

My pet project: https://stickershift.com
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 10:00 AM   #66
dcstep
Major General
United_States
1193
Rep
7,403
Posts

Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.20]
Voodoo4u2, my friend, they are both wonderful lenses, no doubt, and I certainly can't argue that f2.8 is faster than f4. I just want to be that those considering the 2.8 understand that they may be tempted to leave it home because of its size and weight.

I'm kicking myself not taking my whole kit to a concert last night. I only took my 24-105 f4L IS because I'd be shooting the band, kids, sunset, etc. On my way back to my car I hear a bird of prey (I'm still trying to figure out what young bird this was) screeching repeatly. I found him on the peak of an apartment building and think, what the heck, I'll do my best with my what I've got, so I crank ISO to 3200, extend the lens out to 105mm and start taking the photo below. This is a 500% crop!!!! Of course, you see all the noise. It would have had some noise even if taken with my 400mm f5.6L, but the crop would have been like 25%, making the noise harder to see. I had the right tool, but it was sitting at home by the front door.

My whole kit is heavy, cramed in a full sized backpack, but I'm seriously thinking that I'll take the whole thing to any photo-worthy event, even if it's in the trunk of the car. My fastest lens if f4 and if everything were an equivalent 2.8, it wouldn't all fit in a backpack and I'd have to consider a rollerbag. So, I can't argue with more light, BUT you've got to carry all that stuff AND some of these smaller lenses are actually sharper (slightly ).

Taken at 1/1250, f4, ISO-3200, 100mm, cropped about 500% with added NR applied in DxO Optics Pro. (BTW, I added some EXIF to the bee photo, thanks).
Attached Images
 
__________________
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 AM.




f30post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST