Comments on: 70-200f4 vs 70-200f4IS vs 70-200f2.8 vs 70-200f2.8IS

By: admin

admin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:17:07 +0000

depends of what you want to shoot. Extension tube works great when you shoot objects, not so well with insects or moving things. The question should really be: do you need the extra stop of light from IS4 to IS2.8! While wider aperture is always good, I found the f4IS smaller size to be more convenient for 90% of my jobs.

By: r4 ds

r4 ds — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:10:10 +0000

want a 70-200f2.8IS L but can only just afford a 70-200f4IS L so my question bassicly is:

I dont use macro that much so if i was to SELL my 100mm Macro and BUY a 70-200f2.8IS L and a set of Kenko or similar tubes, Would that be a suitable replacement to my 100mm Macro for Macro work??

Thanks.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:14:47 +0000

The reason why I say that 2.8 is better for video is that while you might shoot mostly at f4 or more, if needed, you can go to 2.8 while keeping the desired shutter speed & ISO.

In photography, you have much more flexibility with the shutter speed (if you have a tripod) while in video, the lowest you can go is 30fps.

Of course, this totally depends of what you are shooting and the amount of available light. But for the stuff I do, I shoot mostly at 2.8 and lower most of the time.

By: 5d user

5d user — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:04:08 +0000

Do you mean 2.8 smallest aperture you would use in video with 70-200 or with any lens? because with 2.8 the DOF is too shallow and the background is too blurred for many shots. With video you need more detail in the background than with photographs.