IQ: Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS vs f4.0 (5D2 x1.0 FF)

[trigger]

Having owned the f/2.8 IS for about 2 weeks on the 40D I switched to the f4 IS for cost and weight issues. I also remember that the f4 was sharper wide open and across the range on the 40D then the f2.8.

But since purchasing a FF 5D2 i wanted to test for myself if this still holds true on the FF.


Test set up
Canon 5D2
Canon 70-200mmL F2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mmL F4.0 IS
Tripod in same position
Tested at 70mm and 200mm @ ISO200
The neighbors high contrast wallhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3836677138_a0dd34b744.jpg

The test images.


5D2

@ 70mm

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3835786411_ea8d3bd352_b.jpg

Center Crops
Left Image = 2.8 Lens- Right Image = 4.0 Lens

f/2.8
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3836576380_75a37d7ce9_o.jpg

f/4.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/3835785719_c0cd656bb8_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3836576526_0ef52a11c7_o.jpg

f/5.6
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3468/3836576592_47bd4a64fd_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2523/3836576678_c12d8b56e1_o.jpg

f/8.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3836576758_c4d1768037_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3835786087_9d40251765_o.jpg

f/11.0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3835786173_78210fc01c_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3835786257_129c80f36f_o.jpg


Corner Crops

Left Image = 2.8 Lens- Right Image = 4.0 Lens

f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/3836578024_c2dde33c18_o.jpg

f/4.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/3835787331_3cf65fe125_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/3836578108_17f6ca1b8b_o.jpg

f/5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3836578172_289f22324b_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/3836578212_cd6e47899f_o.jpg

f/8.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2535/3835787561_b48f379ef3_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3835787609_d31f2ff26c_o.jpg

f/11.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2616/3836578342_c8507b9053_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2542/3835787713_78d4182eab_o.jpg




@ 200mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3835786341_b2cbcd2303_b.jpg

Center Crops
Left Image = 2.8 Lens- Right Image = 4.0 Lens

f/2.8
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/3836575642_5af38c3b60_o.jpg

f/4.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2634/3835784995_0343fd8d7f_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/3835785083_3d15fda50d_o.jpg

f/5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/3836575872_b72b87f695_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3836575972_08054171a5_o.jpg

f/8.0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3836576076_d5afd90a69_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3836576076_d5afd90a69_o.jpg

f/11.0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3835785517_9b4a54f0ea_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3835785517_9b4a54f0ea_o.jpg


Corner Crops

Left Image = 2.8 Lens- Right Image = 4.0 Lens

f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/3836577332_c9fbd510ff_o.jpg

f/4.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3836577446_237ec0d204_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2498/3835786795_772b81bbd3_o.jpg

f/5.6
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3836577624_f1d7128d18_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3835786501_bfc7060aba_o.jpg

f/8.0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3836577702_e770663495_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3836577778_973ee7efd3_o.jpg

f/11.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/3835787139_785ecdc1a2_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3836577962_11506d27c2_o.jpg



Observations:

@ 70mm end - Center
The 2.8 lens is soft wide open. But as both lenses are at f4.0. Things look better and they are almost identical in terms of sharpness.
If you look really really closely. the F4 lens has very very slightly better contrast

@ 70mm end - Corners
The 2.8 lens is soft wide open.
The 2.8 lens gets better at around f/5.6 but the f4 lens is sharper throughout the range.

@ 200mm end - Center
The 2.8 lens is soft wide open as expected.
Both lenses look sharp @ f/5.6 till f8.0.
Then the F4 lens looks to have slightly better sharpness

@ 200mm end - Corners
Very surprised at the results. At first i thought i switched the images but i triple checked.
The 2.8 lens is sharper in the corners then the f4 lens.
There is also noticeable red shift in the f4 lens.


Conclusion:

Well. both lenses are quite good in terms of IQ. We are looking at mega 400%+ crops here so in real life it wouldn't effect IQ that much.

When choosing a 2.8 or 4.0 version i would suggest.
Consider

Cost (Significant 30-40% difference in price )
Weight (the 2.8 is a heavy lens x2 the weight of the f4)
If you really need f/2.8 for sports?

[mongo]

Mongo is not a canon user Trigger. However, this is a top test for any lens. Carried out in my view very well. Credible methods and results. Mongo too got identical observations, surprises and conclusions looking at your images. I often look for lens tests, MTF charts and reviews. Yours is as good as any. The time and effort to share the results with us is very much appreciated. I will be looking at others if you post them.

Also not entirely surprised that the more expensive faster glass is not always the best.

Thanks - Mongo

[pgbphotographytas]

I am also not a Canon user but this is a top test and I really enjoyed looking at it and the results.

Paul

[DAdeGroot]

I am a Canon user and have the 2.8 IS version of the lens. I'm not at all surprised by the results and would not trade my lens for the f/4 version.

f/2.8, although a little soft, at these resolutions, in actual use, is quite acceptable and I've had numerous instances where it was needed (over the slower f/4). Yes it's heavy, and large, but for me, worth it.

What I will add, and I think these results support it, no matter which Canon 70-200 you buy, you won't be disappointed in the IQ area :)

[trigger]

Yup. I think in real world applications the difference in IQ is minimal. The cost and weight are not :\

Note about this test. I might do another test under better conditions, controlled lighting, standard distances / hyper focal distances. @ 135mm.

Also might do one with the x1.6 crop 40D

[Dawixe]

I've been iching to get a 70-200 for a while now.....
I'm still leaning on the 2.8 IS side with the only worry of the weight. What I really want to know is does the extra weight really make it harder to hand hold the thing? Is the extra speed plagued by that extra weight?

[trigger]

Well i think with a grip you can balance it out. What do you intend to shoot with it?
If its mission critical stuff like indoor events and weddings then the 2.8 is a must as you only get paid if you get the shots.

General usage its overkill. Think of it as a big. fast. expensive ..tool. Its just that. If you dont need the extra shutter speed then carrying one around kinda makes you look like a tool IMO :p

[arthurking83]

interesting test, and well worth the effort for those contemplating whether to get one or the other.

by the sounds of it, your summary, Trigger, sounds about spot on weight price and speed seem to be the only reasons to choose one over the other.

but it seems that the f/4 version is exposing more brightly by about 1/3Ev in the center, and vignettes more at 200mm and f/4, to be expected especially considering the shape of the f/4's lens hood(traditional rather than petal shaped).

what about focusing speeds, efficiency of the IS system, etc.

[mikew09]

Trigger, excellent test. Answered some important questions for me as I have been toiling over which 7-200L to get as my first L series and price is important (amateur not a PRO) and I don't think the f/2 justifies the extra cost for me.
Most of the action photo's I do are at horse events (95% out doors) of which my kit 55-250IS has served me well and to date there has only been one occasion where lighiting was an issue - a covered horse arena - no flash. Having said this I still managed some sale-able shots. My deliberation was mostly around IQ of which your review has helped.
I think the f/4 will do me fine and with the saving I will put it towards a descent flash.

Great review - look forward to the followups.

[trigger]

Thanks all for the input. Its possible that the f4 sample might be in need of servicing and i've submitted it to Canon today to have it calibrated and check the red shift @200mm

In the mean time. Any one in Sydney have a Tamron 70-200mm or Sigma 70-200mm they are willing for me to put to the tests?

[DAdeGroot]

Yup. I think in real world applications the difference in IQ is minimal. The cost and weight are not :\


Price yes, weight not so much. It's only 1.5kg, and compared to longer glass, that's quite light. Of course if you're carting around a lot of gear, it tends to add up.

Personally I like the extra weight as on the 5DII with grip and a 580exII on top, it all balances quite nicely.

Definitely though for studio portrait work, you could easily get away with the f/4, as you usually want more DoF than f/2.8 can provide anyway, but when the narrow DoF or shutter speed counts, then I'm more than happy to know I have it available.

[Bear Dale]

I'd rather the lug the f/4 around.

[Tricky]

Great test, Trigger, thanks for taking the time to post up the results. :th3:

Both great lenses - can't go wrong with either. For me, the lighter weight of the f/4 swung the day. Note also that for the same price (f/2.8 and f/4 IS are about the same $$$), with the F/4 you get IS which for some people is as big an advantage as the extra stop of light.

PS my POTW161 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=36609) was taken with my 70-200mm f/4 IS, wide open at f/4.

[R1titan]

Thanks for taking the time to test, Trigger!!
Excellent comparison for those looking at a 70-200 lens.

From experience, there is only a marginal difference in sharpness.
The f4 variants have a slightly shorter MFD and more accurate at close distances too.

I've owned 2 copies of the f4, 1 of the f4 IS, and 1 of the 2.8 IS
Both have pros and cons, that's why i still have both :)

[dulvariprestige]

Thanks for this comparison trigger,
I've been using a 2.8 IS on my 450D over the weekend (hired it from brisbane camera hire) and don't want to give it back, it's such a great lens, heavy compared to my lenses, but i still felt fine after 3-4hrs shooting, looks very impressive for it's focal length.
Up until now i was having a hard time deciding which one i should buy, but after reading through this post i am leaning towards the 800 odd dollar less f4.

[Allann]

Great test, and very worthwhile. For anyone interested in the 2.8, there is a non-IS version too that is quite a bit cheaper than IS version and close to the price of the f4. see our sponsor (http://www.qualitycamera.com.au/canon-lenses-c-30.html?page=2&sort=2a&op=list) for details. I have the non-IS 2.8 and I am really happy with the results so far, and must admit haven't had an issue with not having IS yet.

[trizvanov]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I've had my 70-200mm F4.0 for 2.5 years now and I find it fantastic!

The only time I have issues is when the light is less than perfect.

[JCT]

i love my f4, even more so now after looking thru your test

[phild]

Ditto, I love my F4, I don't think I'd opt for the F2.8 even if buying again although, I suspect that the F2.8 would be more usable than the F4 with the 1.4 and 2x TC's.

[David]

Got the F4 without the IS and its a beauty - Sometimes you wonder if YOU are going to want/need 2.8 more often than not and its more an ego thing than anything else...others might be able to afford to pay for it, I certainly wont. At the end of the day isnt it the results YOU get that count, not the lens that shot it ?

This test reinforces my commitment to get the lens/es I need, not the latest and apparently not always the 'greatest' .. thanks for the effort.

[MrTypeR]

great comparison... thanks!... im still leaning at the 2.8 tho! :)

[chrisprendergast]

im looking to buy a 70-200 2.8 is this helped thanks

[Konrad]

thanks - this helped me not feel so bad about not being able to afford the IS USM f2.8

[0Z320]

I'm leaning towards the f4L due to price and weight, but can anyone suggest if i would be better off with the IS version for mainly motor-sport usage?

[Amadeus]

Yikes, not really related, but I've hired the 2.8 for a wedding this weekend, and it looks like I am going to need to use it on my tripod mostly. I'm tiny, and I am concerned about the weight of it.

[arubaato]

Excellent review, right up there with digital picture and dpreview.

I have the 2.8 IS. Have to say sometime I wish I had the f4 version. I've even looked into selling the 2.8 IS and getting a f4 from somewhere, just for the size and weight factors..

However, the bokeh on the 2.8 just looks better than that produced by f4 or f5.6, I just couldn't let go.

[andrask]

Interesting and informative testing!

For the kind of shooting I do, the weight and bulk factor is the major determinant. It's one reason I bought the 5DII - to go with f/4L. I've also skimped on the IS, being happy to lug around a tripod when needed for my non-IS model.

[para]

good work trigger

[Palomine]

Thanks for all the time you put in to this and for sharing it. I hope somebody will allow you to use their Sigma and Tamron Lenses.

[mickey]

Being a Nikon user I still see this as being relevant, however IQ isn't everything, I use 2.8 glass for the extra stop necessary in weddings for low light ceremony/reception and shallow DOF. Probably 70% of my shots are taken at f/2.8.

edit: also, when using the 200 f/2 I notice that I usually use max f/2.2 or 2.5 as the focus becomes very difficult with the weight. I think 2.8 glass is a happy compromise between cost, weight and flexibility.

[tomtom]

thanks for the review

[LEIGHTON]

This might be of out topic, is the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 great for night photography?

[kiwi]

This might be of out topic, is the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 great for night photography?

I don't quite understand the question


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk