Soldato
Gotcha. F/4 reduces dust, but apparently increases BS.
70-200 F4 L IS vs 2.8 IS, the 4 is better ¬_¬
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
pretty sure he maybe misread that. Sure he doesn't think the F4 reduces dust. Was talking about the 40D before that.
Soldato
What is there to misunderstand? I stated clearly that I noticed the "existence" of dust particles at f4 on the 350d and since the 40d has the sonic dust removal feature this is not an issue anymore.
Clearly BS Indeed.
Clearly BS Indeed.
Soldato
I was being sarcastic you jelly baby
I meant that the f/4 lens, you know the one I'd been arguing with you about, was magically creating less dust because it was such an amazing lens Now then, about those f/2.8 samples from your f/4 lens 
I don't have the 2.8 anymore! I sold it to get the 4IS and save £500~ whilst getting better results (hence thread!!)
Soldato
Wait, but the f/4 is the better lens and it can't do f/2.8? Hmmm annoying. So if you wanted f/2.8 the f/4 wouldn't really be a good choice no matter how slightly sharper it is with your eyes right up against the screen. The f/4 might be sharper than the f/2.8 at f/4 but the f/2.8 is easily sharper at f/2.8 than the f/4 is Thus I declare the f/2.8 the winner since the f/4 can't do f/2.8.
Thus I declare the f/2.8 the winner since the f/4 can't do f/2.8.
Soldato
Having seen the results from either lens i would be pleased with the IQ of either, but the f4 wouldn't really be of much use to me due to its relative inability to shoot in lower light conditions. F2.8 all the way!.
Soldato
70-200mm F3.5 - 5.6 for the win
Is it sharper at 103%?
Wait, but the f/4 is the better lens and it can't do f/2.8? Hmmm annoying. So if you wanted f/2.8 the f/4 wouldn't really be a good choice no matter how slightly sharper it is with your eyes right up against the screen. The f/4 might be sharper than the f/2.8 at f/4 but the f/2.8 is easily sharper at f/2.8 than the f/4 is
What if you didn't want/need faster than f/4 but wanted an extra few hundred quid in your pocket? f/4IS winner?
Seriously, of course you love your f/2.8's - i probably would if i could afford one - but making your point like this repeatedly is a bit much.
Both are great lenses obviously - but each is suited to different uses and budgets.
Like i said earlier - the softness of zooms priced the same (or similar) as primes lead me to choose the latter and zoom with my feet. Loved my sigma f/2.8 but compared to my 50 and 300 in sig the images just didn't compare.
gt
Yes I know there is benefit of a 2.8 lens, in case you forgot I do have a standard zoom 2.8 IS as a primary lens so know this but the whole point of my thread is not about why 2.8 is worth it for low light but for the fact that at F4 the F4 is sharper than the 2.8 at F4 because it has way better flare control so midtones and shadow edges are not flared by highlight BGs - how many times will that be missed??
I understand what Pete is trying to point out but some of you guys are failing to understand what I'm trying to point out, that I have owned both these lenses and have gotten better results from the F4 when both lenses were/are always used at F4.
So to make sure everybody is kicking the same ball:
1) I got 2.8 IS 70-200 L for £1200
2) I was not happy with the results below F4 (too flary in highlight/shadow subjects)
3) I got a swapout for another example which was better but still not what I wanted from a £1200 lens
4) I did my research and found others online had the same findings of the 2.8IS
5) I sold the 2.8IS and got the F4 IS
6) I found the 4IS inline with what people said about it on other boards and review sites, that it's sharper at its widest F4 any zoom than the 2.8IS at F4 any zoom
7) I posted my thoughts about this here in this thread
8) Only to be told the 2.8IS is better and that I shoudl post f/2.8 images from the F4... lol
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
What does F2.8 mean? Price?
so you bought one for F=£2,800? and one for F=£4000?
I am lost? please explain?
so you bought one for F=£2,800? and one for F=£4000?
I am lost? please explain?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,489
I want one!!!!!!!!
Really dooooo!!!!!!
Need to see how money pans out for the next month or two
Really dooooo!!!!!!
Need to see how money pans out for the next month or two
Associate
i would like one too for the money a 120-300 f2.8 is not too far off and i am still debating the 2 different lenses.
70-200 has IS and continues nicely from my sigma 17-70.
120-300 further reach
Im not too bothered about IS as the lens will mostly be mounted to a monopod/tripod in most cases.
70-200 has IS and continues nicely from my sigma 17-70.
120-300 further reach
Im not too bothered about IS as the lens will mostly be mounted to a monopod/tripod in most cases.