F2.8 vs F4 Canon L series

[blackcab]

Help Please
I mainly photograph bikes and cars on circuits - I am looking at a new lens and would love the 2.8 but its a big jump from the f4 in terms of price

has anybody got any comparable shots or shots taken on the f4

I have ruled out the Sigma after reading the reports on Image quality ...

Thanks

[MogulBoy]

I have the F4 70-200mm L and love the image quality and focus speed but haven't used it extensively for panning shots.

The ability to go to F2.8 has general appeal although perhaps more essential for football etc. where you need to really pick out the action against distant backgrounds.... F2.8 lenses generally weigh quite a bit more which can also a consideration.

In motorsport, light is often abundant and you want to capture a bit of motion as the wheels (at least) should show a bit of blurring therefore F2.8 may not be necessary. A decent Image Stabilisation system might be though but I have only tried this on a consumer Canon lens.

It would be interesting to test an L-spec lens with IS (some of which I believe even have a mode optimized for panning shots).

At the cheaper end of the market, I saw a demo on YouTube of the Tamron F4 70-200 IS lens which was pretty impressive in static mode at least.

You could look into renting before buying..

[blackcab]

I have a 55 250 is at minute and I do get some decent shots with it from panning, want to improve image quality now and noticed a lot are using the 70-200 with extender on - mixture of f2.8 and F4 - I dont want to buy the f4 and then realise it was no better than my current lens for quality..

I had looked at renting but they are a fortune to rent the f 2.8

[Johno]

I used to use an F4 for motorsport and then got fed up with it and changed for a 2.8, largely because I shoot motorcycles rather than cars mostly and I needed to get closer, which meant 1.6 or 2x teleconverter and you're losing stops all the time.

Then you compensate with ISO and the image quality goes does down. I didn't find there was abundant light for motorsports at all, especially in the UK where cloud cover and dull days unfortunately are prevelant and the quality of the shots with F4 became harder to find, the 2.8 gives greater flexibility in the range of lighting available and range to shoot at.

Worth the extra for me, heavier to use though, but not outrageous.

[AMD87]

blackcab said:

I had looked at renting but they are a fortune to rent the f 2.8

If your going to croft this weekend drop me a pm and you can borrow mine for abit if you want?

[MogulBoy]

I was forgetting about the UK weather and teleconverters...

If a decent IS system can give you the equivalent of 'up to 4 stops' then that sounds like the way forward - assuming that the panning performance is as good as the static performance.

[Craikeybaby]

I have used both f4 and f2.8 versions (both non-IS) for motorsport photography and they are both good lenses, however, check in your camera manual what focus points are available with different aperture lenses, as my experience is that the AF is much better with the f2.8 lens.

[blackcab]

AMD87 said:

If your going to croft this weekend drop me a pm and you can borrow mine for abit if you want?

Thanks for the offer - my next outing is Snetterton at the end of the month

I also been looking at the 70 -300 and 100 400 L series - if I go down the F4 route then the 100 400 is likely to be my choice for reach without an extender

Regards

[AMD87]

blackcab said:

Thanks for the offer - my next outing is Snetterton at the end of the month

I also been looking at the 70 -300 and 100 400 L series - if I go down the F4 route then the 100 400 is likely to be my choice for reach without an extender

Regards

Ah I'm only down this weekend as its the Scottish sports and saloons away round

100-400 is a great lens got a loan of one last week and now really want one!

[Javam]

I have the 100-400, I bought it for air shows. Prior to buying it a good friend gave me a 6 month loan of his 70-200 f2.8 IS (previous version not the Mk II), 1.4 and 2x converters and a 400mm f5.6 prime L lens.

The 70-200 is a lovely lens, very sharp and no noticeable difference with the 1.4x converter on it. With the 2x converter on it was still pretty good, but softer than the 100-400 at the 400mm end.

The 400mm prime is a fair bit sharper than both, but the lack of Zoom and IS make it fairly limiting.

I have heard nothing but good things about the non IS zooms and also the 70-200 f4 IS, but unless you were sure you were never going to need to use a teleconverter or you also had the 100-400, I would go for the 2.8 versions and keep the option open to put a 2x on.

I really like my the 100-400 as I need that range (thinking about hiring a 600mm for the RIAT this year though) but it is quite old now and some people have had problem with the push/pull zoom action sucking dust in past the weather seals.

If you are not sure if 200mm is going to be enough, I would probably hire a 100-400, use it at an event and then look to see what focal length you used it at most of the time.

If it is 200 or thereabouts you could go for a f4 safe in the knowledge you will get the shots you want. If it is nearer 300mm, you could still get an f4 and put a 1.4x converter on it. If you are over 300mm most of the time you will either need to go f2.8 or 100-400 (assuming you don't have deep enough pockets to buy both!)

At this size, it might not help much, but this is a shot I took with my 100-400, cropped down to 3000 x 2000:



and this one was taken using the 70-200 f2.8 + 2x converter

[blackcab]

Great shots - I think the 100 -400 is winning the battle at the minute - the 2.8 200 is still a bit short without the converter - most of the time on the circuits you need to be either in a media point or you do struggle - I still have 75 250 is for the lower end and thats great at 75 through 150 .

Thanks for all your help ... right now to find the best deal on the 100-400 is F4 ..

[2slo]

What about a 300mm f/4 L series? Excellent sharp lens, has IS, mine works extremely well with the 1.4 x TC too. A couple of hundred quid more than the 70-200 and you get 50% more reach.

[RobDickinson]

Canon has a 200-400f4L coming out with a built in 1.4tc...


100-400L is f4-5.6 but is a great lens, the IS mechanism is IMO a bit of an antique but works ok given some time to settle.

[2slo]

RobDickinson said:

Canon has a 200-400f4L coming out with a built in 1.4tc...

Yes, however I suspect that lens might be a little outside of most peoples budget.

[markmullen]

I had a 70-200 F4 IS and it was superb, took a 1.4x converter well too. It was very sharp, lightweight and quick AF.

I swapped it for a 100-400 for the extra reach but at some point will get a 70-200 2.8IS mk2 for low light stuff (rallying in winter for example).

One thing to note is that only the IS versions of the 70-200 are weathersealed, handy for motorsport when used with a weathersealed body.

[2slo]

markmullen said:

One thing to note is that only the IS versions of the 70-200 are weathersealed, handy for motorsport when used with a weathersealed body.

With a filter fitted.

[markmullen]

2slo said:

With a filter fitted.

Indeed.

[Cheburator mk2]

markmullen said:

One thing to note is that only the IS versions of the 70-200 are weathersealed, handy for motorsport when used with a weathersealed body.

Not correct - my Non IS 70-200 2.8L is weather sealed once a filter is fitted. As per my manual...

[Javam]

2slo said:

Yes, however I suspect that lens might be a little outside of most peoples budget.

It is certainly outside of mine at a predicted $11,000

[RobDickinson]

Cheburator mk2 said:

Not correct - my Non IS 70-200 2.8L is weather sealed once a filter is fitted. As per my manual...

I'm not convinced, regardless of what the manual says, it doesnt even have a rubber seal at the mount end.