Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS vs. 70-200 L f/4 IS

I have been debating with a friend of mine which one of these is better in terms of sharpness. All I have heard from people up to this point have been that the f/2.8 is sharper than f/4 at similar apertures.

I have had both of them myself, not at the same time though, but I am not really at a point to tell which one was sharper, as the IQ with both of them looked great and I never did or knew how to do a formal test.

Now that I look at this on the net, the opinions are divided. Some people think f/4 is actually sharper. What do you guys think? And I am asking for a comparison regardless of weight or price or maximum aperture.

Thanks,

Alis

"Which flavour of canon 70-200 lens?" is a good thread and kinda answers the same question you are asking here. I would highly recommend looking this thread up. I think it might answer your question. If you need help looking it up let me know.

Thanks. I thought there should be a thread for this somewhere. I will look it up right now.

Alis

Hi Ali,

The long-standing debate over the sharpness of these two particular lenses - in my mind anyway - is the PERFECT example of the old "can't see the forrest for the trees" saying.

The "correct" way to compare them is in terms of weight - in terms of speed - in terms of IS generation even, - but not in terms of sharpness.

A couple of things that come to mind ...

1. Correct capture sharpening (*yawn*) (which most don't bother to do anyway) will have a far far far far far greater influence on the result than any inherant difference in sharpness between them, and

2. I put both lenses into the "so more than adequate it's not even funny" category in terms of sharpness.

Honestly, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Porche, and choosing the Porche because it uses a lighter grade engine oil -- it just doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi Ali,

1. Correct capture sharpening (*yawn*) (which most don't bother to do anyway) will have a far far far far far greater influence on the result than any inherant difference in sharpness between them, and

---

I've used them both and I personally like the sharpness from the f2.8 better. I will admit I don't know alot about photography, but I am slowly trying to change that.

Showing my ignorance, Colin, what do you mean by correct capture sharpening?

Kim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klf

I've used them both and I personally like the sharpness from the f2.8 better. I will admit I don't know alot about photography, but I am slowly trying to change that.

Showing my ignorance, Colin, what do you mean by correct capture sharpening?

Kim

---

Hi Kim,

Most camera manufacturers deliberately introduce a degree of blur into the image via the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor to prevent moire type patterns in certain sorts of images. The conversion from a RAW shot (be it in camera or via a PC) also introduces more blur. To get around it we apply capture sharpening.

I wrote a wee bit about it here if your interested.

Does this help?

Hi Kim,

I started using the 3 pass sharpening technique that Colin describes a few months ago and it really makes a big difference.

Thanks, everyone, for the comments. I am reading them.

About the sharpening issue, Colin, I found this:

http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/...sbn=0321637550

Looks like the new edition of the book you intorduced. You may want to update the link in your thread.

Thanks Alis and Colin--I think it will help. I've been using the unsharp mask only (I think) and the equivalent in lightroom. Will have to try the 3 pass method when I get time. I have to do a bit more reading from the links as well. Thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

Thanks, everyone, for the comments. I am reading them.

About the sharpening issue, Colin, I found this:

http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/...sbn=0321637550

Looks like the new edition of the book you intorduced. You may want to update the link in your thread.

---

Thanks Ali -- Man I "hate" one-click ordering ... you just cost me about $60 (NZ) Bucks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Thanks Ali -- Man I "hate" one-click ordering ... you just cost me about $60 (NZ) Bucks!

---

Sorry!

I will wait for a second hand version, I am patient! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

Sorry!

I will wait for a second hand version, I am patient! ;)

---

I thought you were the Doctor? ;)

Patient doctors - Doctor patients - patient patients - maaan it gets confusing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I thought you were the Doctor? ;)

Patient doctors - Doctor patients - patient patients - maaan it gets confusing!

---

You know they say you don't have to be a doctor to have patience...;)

Pixel peepers will tell you that the f/4L IS lens is the sharpest of the Canon 70-200mm L quartet. Objective testing seems to back this up...

However, I sincerely doubt if anyone could differentiate between images shot with these lenses if they were viewing a selection of images shot with the various 70-200mm lenses.

I have owned the f/4L (non-IS) and now own the 70-200mm f/4L IS version. I have also used both f/2.8 versions.

The major difference among the the four versions is not sharpness nor image quality. The differences are:

Size and weight: Both f/4L versions are considerably smaller in size than the f/2.8 versions. The weight difference is quite significant. The f/2.8L IS weighs 1,470 Grams while its seemingly diminutive sibling, the f/4L IS lens weighs only 760 grams. I can carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS mounted on a second 40D camera at the same weight as the f/2.8L IS lens alone. The f/4 versions (especially if used with a round screw-in lens hood) attract considerably less attention.

Aperture: Obviously the f/2.8L brothers are a stop faster than the f/4L brothers. However, with the high ISO capability of today's DSLR cameras, I have no great problem shooting in most venues using my f/4L IS lens. In fact, here is a link to night American High School Football shot with an f/4L IS lens.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=746074
The f/2.8 lenses will, of course, allow for greater control of depth of field since the DOF of an f/2.8 version is a lot shorter than that of the f/4 versions. However, this shorter DOF is a double edged sword since it is sometimes too short for practical use. Of course, you can always stop down an f/2.8 lens but, you cannot open an f/4 lens past that aperture.

Price: Obviously, there is quite a difference in price. I won't go into the actual pricing of the 70-200mm family of L glass but, in the U.S. the prices of the various lenses are that the f/4L (non-IS) is the least expensive; the f/2.8L (non-IS) and f/4L IS lens prices are pretty close in price; and the f/2.8L IS lens is the most expensive. In fact, the f/4L IS lenses average only about 2/3 the price of the f/2.8L IS versions.

All of these lenses will provide great quality. I chose the f/4L IS because I carry two 1.6x cameras with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses attached. This, in itself is a pretty heavy load which I carry with the neat OPTECH Dual Harness:

http://optechusa.com/product/detail/?PRODUCT_ID=87

Although the dual harness is a great way to carry a pair of bodies/lenses, I believe that the extra weight and bulk of the f/2.8 IS lens would be the straw that broke the camel's (in this case I am the camel) back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

I have been debating with a friend of mine which one of these is better in terms of sharpness. All I have heard from people up to this point have been that the f/2.8 is sharper than f/4 at similar apertures.

I have had both of them myself, not at the same time though, but I am not really at a point to tell which one was sharper, as the IQ with both of them looked great and I never did or knew how to do a formal test.

Now that I look at this on the net, the opinions are divided. Some people think f/4 is actually sharper. What do you guys think? And I am asking for a comparison regardless of weight or price or maximum aperture.

Thanks,

Alis

---

In my OWN experiments I found that the f4 out resolved the 2.8. I tried with two 2.8 and 3 f4s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Simonius

In my OWN experiments I found that the f4 out resolved the 2.8. I tried with two 2.8 and 3 f4s.

---

However - in "real world" shooting situations - I take the position that both are clearly (pun intended!) in the "more than adequate" category :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Thanks Ali -- Man I "hate" one-click ordering ... you just cost me about $60 (NZ) Bucks!

---

You and me both!..... It'll be here Friday...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alis

I have been debating with a friend of mine which one of these is better in terms of sharpness. All I have heard from people up to this point have been that the f/2.8 is sharper than f/4 at similar apertures.

I have had both of them myself, not at the same time though, but I am not really at a point to tell which one was sharper, as the IQ with both of them looked great and I never did or knew how to do a formal test.

Now that I look at this on the net, the opinions are divided. Some people think f/4 is actually sharper. What do you guys think? And I am asking for a comparison regardless of weight or price or maximum aperture.

Thanks,

Alis

---

The 2.8 has higher contrast and so appears sharper, but when you get to pixel peeping the f4 has it. That's the conclusion I came to after pixel peeping using shots of the same thing at same apertures, although I only tested from wide open to 5.6

I would also agree with everything that rpcrowe said in his last post;)