One of the most standard professional lenses for a wide range of genres is the 70-200mm f/2.8, but such lenses are almost always expensive and bulky. In recent years, we have seen a rise in 70-200mm f/4 lenses as alternatives for those who want the versatility of those focal lengths but who do not need the extra stop of aperture. Canon shooters have options in both camps, so which is right for your work? This helpful video comparison takes a look.
Coming to you from John Gress, this great video comparison takes a look at the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lenses. At $1,200 less and with considerably less bulk, the f/4 is an intriguing alternative, particularly for people like studio photographers, who have full control of their lighting during shoots. On the other hand, the image quality between the two lenses is not equal. That being said, though, I think the f/4 version still produces perfectly good photos, and if you do not need the absolute best image quality (you would probably be using a prime lens in studio then anyway) or that extra stop of aperture, it is well worth at least considering it as an alternative. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Gress.
I'd argue you don't need a 70-200 at all for studio work. For the cost of a 70-200 I can buy several primes that will be lighter, faster, and sharper. My tele zoom never comes out of the bag when I'm working in the studio. It exists only for situations where I lack the freedom to easily change lenses while shooting.
My thoughts exactly. The primary reason to have a zoom is for travel and awkward situations where you just can’t anticipate in advance which angles you will use on location.
I almost never shoot my 70-200mm wider than F4 unless I'm in some seriously low light and flash isn't an option. For me I don't see much reason as keeping eyes in focus at 2.8 kind of tough.
Not 4 the faint of heart
A full day of carrying it around is a rough day at the office
I love f4 lenses. If you're shooting commercial head shots the first thing you have to do with all of that fantastic f2.8 lens detail is retouch it out of the photos because nobody wants to see it. So that said I can see where the shallow depth f2.8 dreaminess can be an asset for artsy wedding photos and the like but if you get it wrong you're going to have a lot of out of focus photos. I was a photo editor for many years and i can't tell you how many out of focus f2.8 photos I've seen. The right tool for the job. Cheers.
One of my biggest regrets when it comes to lens purchases was when I opted to buy the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G lens instead of the f/2.8 GM lens. (Henceforth, I'll refer to them as G or GM lenses.) However, I did get the G lens at about 33% off, as a good customer discount. Which is why I bought it. The shop owner wasn't going to give me a discount on the GM lens.
Don't get me wrong, I don't regret the purchase that much. It's a great lens. I don't shoot sports with it, so I don't often need a more wide open aperture than f/4. It's light and zooms internally. It focuses faster than the old GM lens. However, My G won't work with either converter like a GM lens would.
It's filled the void while I was waiting for Sony to update it's GM version and look what an upgrade I'll be getting! The new FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II is a huge leap forward over the old model.
As for the subject of this article. f/2.8 lenses usually have a shorter minimum focusing distance over their f/4 counterparts, so I'd say that you'd probably want the f/2.8 for portraits even if you're shooting with smaller apertures.
Wouldn’t the studio be the perfect environment to use primes only.