File :-(, x, )
70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Anonymous
What's up, dudes.

I'm about to get a tele for pro level portraits and it's either the 70-200 f/4 IS or the f/2.8 without IS.

The first one is $1,100 and the other is $1,200.

I've used the f/2.8 IS before and I fucking love it but I don't want to spend $1,700.

The f/4 IS is awesome because it's got insane optical quality and it has IS.

The f/2.8 is f/2.8 O_O And it would give me faster shutter speeds. DOF difference is negligible I think, unless I don't know how to read the results on DOFMaster.

So pretty much, the IS on the f/4 IS can compensate for the slower shutter speeds and I don't do sports so I don't need to freeze action, that's such a popular term, freeze action.

Anyway, I'm pretty much set on the f/4 IS but the only thing that bothers me is that I could probably save up for another few months and buy the f/2.8 IS.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
in b4 jealous
>> Anonymous
Buy the 4, and then sell it when you need the 2.8 IS instead and can afford it. You probably won't lose much money, and you'll get it now instead of later. Also you might NOT need 2.8 and be fine.
>> L0ol !QgACNkSwFA
For portraits, I would probably wait and get the 2.8 IS. I don't remember what the minimum focal distance is in the 85 - 120mm range, but being able to open up to 2.8 gives you the flexibility you might need.
>> Anonymous
>>239663

I live in a small town and there's no market for these things. I order all my stuff from the US.

And fuck if I have to ship something out to some dude online. Fuck no. :|

>>239664

I ran the numbers on DOFMaster and the difference is negligible I think. The f/4 IS focuses closer I think, not sure what it is but I know the f/2.8 IS goes down to 1.4 m.
>> lehesai
I have the f4 IS and absolutely love it! But I mainly shoot wildlife and small sports events. The f2.8 IS is just too heavy for me.
Why would you want to shoot portraits with a zoom anyway? I think a prime would be most suitable for that...
>> Anonymous
>>239666
>And fuck if I have to ship something out to some dude online. Fuck no. :|

Why the hell not? I resell lenses all the time on eBay. It's easy and you can usually get nearly what you paid for back. Just use paypal, ship only to the continental U.S. to confirmed addresses and don't ship until payment clears.
>> Anonymous
>>239706Why would you want to shoot portraits with a zoom anyway? I think a prime would be most suitable for that...

85mm or 135mm would look the same with a fixed 85mm, 135mm or a 70-200 at 85mm and 135mm

I work with lights so I'm not shooting wide open.

Image quality difference is marginal but I've never used the 135mm or 200mm. I can take the quality hit to have the versatility of all the other ranges.

>>239708

Just not a big fan of selling things online. Actually, I just don't like selling my things in general. :/
>> lehesai
Well... Then there's not much to choose from.
If you can't afford the f2.8 IS - you're best bet would be the f4 IS. I personally think that it owns the f2.8 in almost every aspect.
>> Anonymous
Hmm, the extra $600 will probably be better off earning interest and saving it for a future purchase.

Oh well, guess I don't really need the faster stop.
>> lehesai
>>239715
>Hmm, the extra $600 will probably be better off earning interest and saving it for a future purchase.

A very good idea.
>> Anonymous
You can consider the EF 135mm F/2.0 which is the sharpest lens that Canon has built and the focal length is adequate for portrait photography. Also it's a perfect lens for candid shots :-)
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>239746
QFT.

only the coolest people shoot with primes (like me! ;D)

yea, personally i'd go with either the 135 2, or "fap fap fap" the 85L

can you imagine the DOF control with either of those dildo's mounted on your canon :O
oh btw, crop or FF? makes a big difference r.e suggestions...
>> Anonymous
The 200mm is the sharpest one, not the 135mm!

And fuck that, the 70-200 f/4 IS is the sharpest telezoom. I'm not paying over $900 for the 135mm. I can use a 70-200 for other things.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
They are all great lenses, to be honest. Nothing "wrong" with any of them. They'll do what you expect and have all been used to produce great images. If you've got the money then get whatever you can afford that will suit your ends.

Aside from that I will say that if I was you I'd just save up and get the 2.8 IS. It's only a few months. Just be patient.

Also, I don't know what the light is like there, but sometimes you need as wide an aperture as you can get when it is poor, especially in winter months.
>> Anonymous
You're only saying that because you have the f/2.8 IS and jealous of the superior image quality of the f/4 IS.

I kid, I kid. You know I love you, Blacknigger.

I've worked with a 24-105 f/4 IS before and higher ISO at f/4 is acceptable for some of the things I would be using it for. It's not perfect, but it will have to do.

I would rather have 2 lenses than only one. I'll use the $600 for something else later.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>239959

Sounds good to me then. I don't think you'll be disappointed at all when you have it. You'll find you can get nice DOF effects with the f4 too. It's not that narrow. I've seen plenty portraits taken with it and street shots that showed off its abilities nicely.

It will serve you well and if you ever want to get another similar lens like the 2.8 then you can always sell it or (if you're feeling flush with money) get both. It will retain its value and usefulness for years to come. Getting two lenses or piece of equipment could well be the the best option for you, especially if you feel there is something that would greatly expand your options, such as a flash or some such.