[Christos]

Ok I am in debate over the EF 70-200 f4 L IS or the 70-200 2.8 II, I just got into shooting weddings and did my first one 3 weeks ago and have another one end of this month, I see photographers like Jerry Ghionis and so on that use the 2.8 but the question is why since even the f4 with 4 stops IS can easily get a sharp image even in low light (since the bride and groom are still anyways)unless they use it for better DOF,

but if I really should buy the 2.8 II I will

Thanks

[bryan conner]

A faster lens can also mean faster auto focus in low light situations. On certain cameras, a 2.8 lens will focus in a situation where an f4 lens will not. Situations like this are very common in shooting weddings. I have shot a wedding that was lit primarily by candles...talk about a focusing nightmare.



Also, I would not be surprised if the 2.8 lens is sharper at f4 than the f4 lens is at f4 (wide open).

[stevem]

The 7D has a high-precision AF sensor at the centre which can be used for lenses which are f2.8 or faster.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Christos' timestamp='1286554442' post='3552']

Ok I am in debate over the EF 70-200 f4 L IS or the 70-200 2.8 II, I just got into shooting weddings and did my first one 3 weeks ago and have another one end of this month, I see photographers like Jerry Ghionis and so on that use the 2.8 but the question is why since even the f4 with 4 stops IS can easily get a sharp image even in low light (since the bride and groom are still anyways)unless they use it for better DOF,

but if I really should buy the 2.8 II I will

Thanks

[/quote]



There are very few reasons why anyone should choose the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 IS II (only Mk II). For everything other than weight, the 2.8 IS II will be better hands down. f/4 is going to be barely enough for things like weddings where there's movement. When shooting people you'll have to think about having at least 1/80 (stabilisation aside) in the short-medium tele range or else you'll have subject blur. I don't think the f/4 can do it without pushing the ISO limits at ISO3200 if the lighting isn't ideal. If you're doing it for money then go for the 2.8 because you'll have much better shots.



Getting down to the plain optics, the 2.8 II is sharper at 2.8 than the f/4 IS is at f/4. That's a lot because the f4 IS was considered the best zoom until the 2.8 IS II came along. Also the newer lens has less CA than the f4 IS, although I doubt you'll have much trouble with it anyway. Like the other person said, the 2.8 lens will also have less AF trouble when the light is low.



Alternatively, get the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2L instead along with a 24-70 2.8 on another body. I can guarantee that you'll get more interesting shots with the primes than you could with either the 2.8 IS or the f4 IS, especially with the 85 1.8.



GTW



PS: Yes, I have used these lenses. Here's [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter"]a list[/url] of them all.

[Christos]

[quote name='Bryan Conner' timestamp='1286559249' post='3553']

A faster lens can also mean faster auto focus in low light situations. On certain cameras, a 2.8 lens will focus in a situation where an f4 lens will not. Situations like this are very common in shooting weddings. I have shot a wedding that was lit primarily by candles...talk about a focusing nightmare.



Also, I would not be surprised if the 2.8 lens is sharper at f4 than the f4 lens is at f4 (wide open).

[/quote]

Thanks.

[Christos]

[quote name='Steve M' timestamp='1286707659' post='3565']

The 7D has a high-precision AF sensor at the centre which can be used for lenses which are f2.8 or faster.

[/quote]Thanks I also have the 5D II

[Christos]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1286772775' post='3571']

There are very few reasons why anyone should choose the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 IS II (only Mk II). For everything other than weight, the 2.8 IS II will be better hands down. f/4 is going to be barely enough for things like weddings where there's movement. When shooting people you'll have to think about having at least 1/80 (stabilisation aside) in the short-medium tele range or else you'll have subject blur. I don't think the f/4 can do it without pushing the ISO limits at ISO3200 if the lighting isn't ideal. If you're doing it for money then go for the 2.8 because you'll have much better shots.



Getting down to the plain optics, the 2.8 II is sharper at 2.8 than the f/4 IS is at f/4. That's a lot because the f4 IS was considered the best zoom until the 2.8 IS II came along. Also the newer lens has less CA than the f4 IS, although I doubt you'll have much trouble with it anyway. Like the other person said, the 2.8 lens will also have less AF trouble when the light is low.



Alternatively, get the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2L instead along with a 24-70 2.8 on another body. I can guarantee that you'll get more interesting shots with the primes than you could with either the 2.8 IS or the f4 IS, especially with the 85 1.8.



GTW



PS: Yes, I have used these lenses. Here's [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter"]a list[/url] of them all.

[/quote]

Thanks, I will get the 70-200 2.8 II, that is quite a list you have there right now I also have the 5D II, 7D, 24-105 IS, 16-35 2.8 II, EF 100 2.8 L IS Macro, EF 50 1.4, and 70-300 IS DO lenses but I was also just thinking when the Pentax K-5 comes out (just a thought) maybe sell the 7D and get the K-5 but maybe that won't be a good idea.