User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  6
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Canon Zoom F4 F2.8

  1. #1
    Member Woodward's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Oct 2019
    Location
    Dronten
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon Zoom F4 F2.8

    There's a huge difference in price between Canon Zooms F4 F2.8, is a F4 ok in good light? Would it be as sharp as a F2.8?

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,381
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodward View Post
    There's a huge difference in price between Canon Zooms F4 F2.8, is a F4 ok in good light? Would it be as sharp as a F2.8?
    Most lenses are not as sharp at either end of their aperture range. Most lenses are their sharpest when set to between f8 and f14.

    Also every single lens is going to have its own quirks. You could put 10 copies of the same lens side by side and each will have its own small discrepancies.

    What are you wanting to shoot with the lens?
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular Brian500au's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have owned both twice - they are different lenses for different reasons. There is no difference is sharpness between the IS version of either one of them. The difference is weight and the max aperture. You decide what you main purpose of the lens and then you will get more specific advice.
    www.kjbphotography.com.au

    1Dx, EOS R, 200-400 f4L Ext, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II, 70-200 F4IS, 24-70 F2.8, 16-35 F4IS


  4. #4
    Member I Like to Watch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Oct 2019
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Assuming we are talking about the 70-200mm zoom ?

    As others have mentioned, if you 'Stop down' from maximum aperture, you will probably get a much sharper image from both lenses.
    (which means f/4 on the f/2.8 will be sharper than f/4 on the f/4 lens).

    However, you will never have f/2.8 available on the f/4 lens. The 'faster' lens will also mean bigger and heavier to carry though. When I had this choice many years ago, I got the f/2.8 because I wanted it for sport shots.
    That may not be the right choice for you though.
    Last edited by I Like to Watch; 26-06-2020 at 12:44pm.
    < Photography is just a hobby for me. Take any of my opinions and/or criticisms with a grain of salt >

  5. #5
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Huon Valley
    Posts
    3,697
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, with the Canon 70-200s, the sharpness difference between wide open and a stop or two down is trivially small. For not-quite-all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. The general rule is that lenses are sharpest in the middle of their range, but really good quality lenses go a long way towards breaking this rule. Wide-open sharpness is one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) why people pay $2000 for a particular lens when another fairly similar one is $499. There are four different Canon 70-200s; they are all expensive; they are all very good.

    The other two obvious possibilities where there are pairs of Canon zoom lenses in f/2.8 and f/4 are:

    16-35 ultra-wide angle. The f/2.8 lens is heavier, bulkier, vastly more expensive, and doesn't have IS. The f/4 is as good or better at everything except some aspects of low light work (in general, the extra stop makes up for the lack of IS at these very short focal lengths and provides greater compositional flexibility). Personally, I really can't see the point of an f/2.8 ultra-wide, but they are quite popular so obviously not everyone agrees.

    24-70 Similar considerations apply. IS becomes more of a factor at these middling focal lengths. On the other hand, the ability to get a fairly shallow depth of field with f/2.8 and (say) 50mm is very useful - much more so than with ultra-wides which have a pretty deep DOF at any aperture. My own view is that the cost and weight saving trumps the shallow DOF, and the IS is a big advantage. With the money saved by not getting a 24-70/2.8 I can afford to buy a nice fast prime (say an 85/1.8) and have the best of both worlds. Note also that if you are thinking about a 24-70/4, you should also consider a 24-105/4. There are reasons for and against both.
    Tony

    It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.

Posting Permissions

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