ahh my bad in which case at half the price, its a great lens, despite those shortcomings!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am torn. f/4 IS or F/2.8 no IS
- Thread starter mulo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ahh my bad in which case at half the price, its a great lens, despite those shortcomings!
No, IS (in lenses) moves optical elements (composed of several lenses) to compensate for motion blur. But in certain situations, they can actually reduce sharpness. AFAIK, when you use a tripod, you're supposed to switch it off, for example.
The IS helps because it stabilizes the lens, but the actual construction of the optics is different between the two:
Non-IS version: 16 elements in 13 groups, including 1 flourite element and 2 UD elements
IS version: 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 flourite element and 2 UD elements
Perhaps I didn't notice, because the non-IS also had very good optics and my mind conflated the two lenses. It's one of the few lenses I was jealous of as a Nikonian.
Yeah, I have a landscape photographer friend who is really annoyed that there is not yet a Nikon equivalent. I'm sure it's high on Nikon's to-do list.
Some lenses, such as the 70-200 f/4L IS have tripod detection, but if you keep the IS turned on, you're just wasting battery power. The exception would be if you're shooting in windy or otherwise bouncy situations (such as on a bridge); then the IS can come in very handy.
Last edited:
I have a question that I think might help speed up and simplify things a bit.
Will the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, that I believe to be sharper, blur more then the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD, when hand held due to the lack of IS. On average, and when at 200mm, which is its worst?
Will the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, that I believe to be sharper, blur more then the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD, when hand held due to the lack of IS. On average, and when at 200mm, which is its worst?
Last edited:
You may be thinking of point-and-shoot cameras that have a deceiving marketing name for a feature that boosts the ISO (in addition to there perhaps being some kind of actual stabilization). With real stabilization, you're getting a tripod substitute: the lens senses movement and shifts its elements around accordingly--nothing in the exposure changes that would affect noise.
mulo, I think that list of f/2.8 lenses includes a mixture of ones with and without stabilization. So, no, the sharpest of them is not going to be sharp enough to make up for camera shake.
OK, so your question is essentially whether or not superior lens resolution can make up for camera shake at 200mm. I would answer no. The difference in resolution is not that great. Stabilization helps a lot for sharpness (for stationary subjects, of course).
He might referr for acustic noise instead of sensor noise. On my IS lenses I can hear the gyros spinning plus it makes some small click sound when the gyros stopping. Normally nothing to be considered; in a very silent environment it might disturb the audience.
And agree: no impact of sensor noise impacting the IQ.
How come you have to rely on belief? It's really quite simple: there are situations when each one of the lenses (including the ones you listed before editing your post) are sharper/better than the other in some way or another.
I don't know, but I get the vibe you actually just want the Canon f/2.8 and you're trying to convince yourself. (No offense intended here, just asking.)
Ah, I hadn't thought of that.
none taken! I can understand where your coming from. When I first posted the thread I was all set and go for the canon f2.8 but I wanted to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. Brand loyal as I am (can't deny it) this was the logical choice.
As a lot of information was being brought forth I started realizing that this wasn't necessarily the better choice. So by now I'm also on the lookout for sigmas latest, however, being as new as it is I doubt there are any good second hand deals to be had. Which back in reality, ultimately is the deciding factor, money.
Last edited:
For about the same amount of money, you can get either that Sigma brand new or else a used copy of the Canon lens (but the Mark 1 version). The Canon has better build quality and will probably have better resale value, should you ever decide to move on to something newer or different. It sounds as though both lenses are pretty comparable as far as image quality goes. You'll probably be quite happy with either option.
One last thing: no matter which lens you go for, quality lenses depreciate extremely slowly. I bought my Nikkor used almost 5 years ago. Today, I could sell it at a loss of 50~80 .* So even if you go for the »wrong« lens (whichever that may be), you can sell it at a small loss or no loss at all. Some rare lenses even sell for more than what they originally cost. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.
* Keep as much documentation as you can. Many people even keep the original packaging around.
TBF the lenses are so similar in most regards, you will be pretty happy with either.
If photography is not your living and its a hobby, then choose the one you WANT most....If you have your heart set on the 2.8 then go for it...hobby photography is about enjoyment!!!
If photography is not your living and its a hobby, then choose the one you WANT most....If you have your heart set on the 2.8 then go for it...hobby photography is about enjoyment!!!
2.8. At 200mm, you're likely to be shooting fast-moving subjects (unless you're shooting portraits or fashion) so you'd be better served by faster shutter speeds than the image stabilization from the f/4 version.
Have you considered third party lenses? Sigma's lenses can be as sharp or sharper than Canon's sometimes, and they have excellent customer service. I have their old version of the 70-200 2.8 and it's extremely sharp. The autofocus went out on it once when a friend dropped it from a short distance (!!) and they repaired it for free (minus shipping) even though I had owned it for more than two years. Turnaround was less than two weeks, too.
Have you considered third party lenses? Sigma's lenses can be as sharp or sharper than Canon's sometimes, and they have excellent customer service. I have their old version of the 70-200 2.8 and it's extremely sharp. The autofocus went out on it once when a friend dropped it from a short distance (!!) and they repaired it for free (minus shipping) even though I had owned it for more than two years. Turnaround was less than two weeks, too.
That's a tough one. Personally, I would go with the IS at that focal length. The argument for 2.8 is valid, but sometimes you just need to shoot handheld at a slower shutter speed, which is very difficult with a fully extended zoom.
My longest lens without IS is the 135L, and there have been plenty of times when having IS would have prevented blurry shots. Personally, not having IS on my 24-70L has been an issue, as I don't have the steadiest hands. Thankfully, I have a 5D2, which is great at high ISOs. But on my 7D, which is close to your 60D for noise, I try to never go above ISO 1200.
Also, I've heard better things about the image quality of the F/4 than the non-IS F/2.8. Not that the 2.8 is bad by any means, it just seems the 4 has a better rep. (I recently upgraded all my equipment, so I've done a LOT of research on all of the L lenses.)
My longest lens without IS is the 135L, and there have been plenty of times when having IS would have prevented blurry shots. Personally, not having IS on my 24-70L has been an issue, as I don't have the steadiest hands. Thankfully, I have a 5D2, which is great at high ISOs. But on my 7D, which is close to your 60D for noise, I try to never go above ISO 1200.
Also, I've heard better things about the image quality of the F/4 than the non-IS F/2.8. Not that the 2.8 is bad by any means, it just seems the 4 has a better rep. (I recently upgraded all my equipment, so I've done a LOT of research on all of the L lenses.)
Last edited:
Forget IS and get the faster glass. The extra stop of light will be real, not some "gimmick" and with proper technique will achieve images that are simply not possible with the f/4.
Keep in mind that IS is only helpful in low light, slow shutter conditions.. and is not a magic way to make otherwise blurred shots come out crisp; in my opinion, technique trumps all aspects of any artificial image stabilization and I never, ever use it even though my camera body came with the feature. Faster glass and no IS will make a better photographer out of you.
Keep in mind that IS is only helpful in low light, slow shutter conditions.. and is not a magic way to make otherwise blurred shots come out crisp; in my opinion, technique trumps all aspects of any artificial image stabilization and I never, ever use it even though my camera body came with the feature. Faster glass and no IS will make a better photographer out of you.
If you can't afford the new 70-200, you also can't afford any other lens, because the hard part is justifying the purchase. Can you justify your expense? Are you buying a lens to convert cash, as a collector's item, or are you buying a tool to do a job? If it's a job, what do you really need?
Long ranges - a prime lens like the 300 f/4 IS would be better
Bokeh - 300 f/4 IS, 200 f/2.8, 135 f/2
Your other requirements don't make sense. The lens aperture doesn't do much for shutter speed, nor does it cause blurring. Nowhere else do you mention what you actually need, so I suggest that you don't really need to buy a 70-200 zoom lens, and that you should reconsider the value of prime lenses.
Long ranges - a prime lens like the 300 f/4 IS would be better
Bokeh - 300 f/4 IS, 200 f/2.8, 135 f/2
Your other requirements don't make sense. The lens aperture doesn't do much for shutter speed, nor does it cause blurring. Nowhere else do you mention what you actually need, so I suggest that you don't really need to buy a 70-200 zoom lens, and that you should reconsider the value of prime lenses.
I've owned the 2.8 non-I.S. for a while and found it too heavy, and not so sharp wide open, so I sold it. I now have the f4 I.S. and couldn't be happier. Its sharper, half the weight, and in my case, I.S. has more benefits that a faster lens. YMMV
Forget IS and get the faster glass. The extra stop of light will be real, not some "gimmick" and with proper technique will achieve images that are simply not possible with the f/4.
Keep in mind that IS is only helpful in low light, slow shutter conditions.. and is not a magic way to make otherwise blurred shots come out crisp; in my opinion, technique trumps all aspects of any artificial image stabilization and I never, ever use it even though my camera body came with the feature. Faster glass and no IS will make a better photographer out of you.
OK, but it really does depend on what you're photographing. If your subject isn't moving and the scene will benefit from a greater depth of field, then IS is the obvious solution (if you can't use a tripod for whatever reason). IS is no gimmick; it really does work.
Coming from you, who does perform absolute magic tricks with her camera gear!
I find no use for IS in my daily use.. but if you like it then I LOVE IT!!
I have the 300 f/4 IS, and would trade it for the 300 f/2.8 non-IS. Well, if I didn't have to travel with the 2.8, or the size was the same. As is the case with the 70-200.
The reason is the 2.8 can be used with a tripod and shutter release to take pictures with a much faster shutter speed.
You can also add the 1.4x or 2x tele-extender and get a f/4 or f/5.6 lens and still use the auto focus. I can only use the 1.4x on my 300mm f/4 to make it a 420mm f/5.6.
The reason is the 2.8 can be used with a tripod and shutter release to take pictures with a much faster shutter speed.
You can also add the 1.4x or 2x tele-extender and get a f/4 or f/5.6 lens and still use the auto focus. I can only use the 1.4x on my 300mm f/4 to make it a 420mm f/5.6.
Coming from you, who does perform absolute magic tricks with her camera gear!
I find no use for IS in my daily use.. but if you like it then I LOVE IT!!
Haha...thanks for giving me my daily smile.
IS has saved me on many occasions, but I do acknowledge that it is useless for a lot of people.