70-200 f2.8 and f4 blur

[krzkrzkrz]

Quick question.

Is the bokeh / blur better than one or the other lenses? Or just a slight difference?

Thinking of getting one, but the f2.8 costs much more than the f4. In terms of optical quality, both lenses are superb!

[danielg]

Quick question.

Is the bokeh / blur better than one or the other lenses? Or just a slight difference?

Thinking of getting one, but the f2.8 costs much more than the f4. In terms of optical quality, both lenses are superb!

The F/2.8 will give you a better bokeh and it will definitely be easier to achieve a bokeh BUT it is much more expensive and heavier. If ou don't mind the weight and if its within your budget go for the f/2.8 -
The only advantage the f/4 has is it is lighter and smaller and based on numerous reviews a bit sharper than the f/2.8. I personally have the f/4 because of financial constraints but if ever I have the money I will get the f/2.8 specially if shooting indoor sports is a priority. :)

[coldrain]

I am quite sure the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM will give better bokeh than the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM. It just will not go to f2.8, but for the rest it is the better lens.

[krzkrzkrz]

I am quite sure the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM will give better bokeh than the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM. It just will not go to f2.8, but for the rest it is the better lens.

Just curious why you say it is the better lens. I was assuming the 70-200 f2.8 is the better of the two

[coldrain]

What is the reason you assume it is the better lens?

[VTEC_EATER]

Just curious why you say it is the better lens. I was assuming the 70-200 f2.8 is the better of the two


Apparently the resolution of the F/2.8 is lacking compared to the F/4. Even stopped down, the F/2.8's MTF chart cant come close to the F/4 wide open. Of course this is what I have seen on photozone's website and not from personal experience.

[kuroneko]

i believe with 70-200 f4.. you cannot get Bokeh as creamy as 70-200 f2.8

here is a sample shot taken with Kiss Digital N and EF 70-200 f2.8 L @ f2.8 FL200mm

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/atrisinggih/Bird.jpg

and i really think 70-200 f2.8 is quite sharp!..

[kuroneko]

here another sample with f2.8 @ 155mm

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/atrisinggih/yellow.jpg


and this is a sample with f4 @ 200mm

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/atrisinggih/rose5.jpg


you cannot render a very blurry BG with F4..

[adam75south]

f/2.8 at 1/30s...yea it's a better lens.

as far as pixel peeping is concerned....i have no clue...hell, for all i know the kit lens is freakin beautiful at f/8. but i wouldn't know.

[krzkrzkrz]

I am quite sure the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM will give better bokeh than the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM. It just will not go to f2.8, but for the rest it is the better lens.

Coldrain, you have a 70-200 f4 L IS USM. Why did you pick this over the f2.8? Just curious to know

[coldrain]

The f4 is a LOT less heavy. That is the main reason. Also, it is a lot cheaper, of course.

But weight is the reason, you have to lug around only half the weight... and that is a lot.

If I were to choose a lens now, I would get the F4 IS version.

[kuroneko]

The f4 is a LOT less heavy. That is the main reason. Also, it is a lot cheaper, of course.

But weight is the reason, you have to lug around only half the weight... and that is a lot.

If I were to choose a lens now, I would get the F4 IS version.

you forgot to mention the size! :D
its too intimidating to be used for street photography!..its big and bright white!..
people will definitely look at you carrying that lens!
sometime i just hope that the 70-200L series comes in black color!

but despite all that, i love the image quality of 70-200L f2.8, specially for low light and it's "bokeh" rendering capability.