f2.8 vs f4: I am interested in learning from those with first hand experience whether or not there is an appreciable difference between lenses of a comparable zoom range with a...

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I am interested in learning from those with first hand experience whether or not there is an appreciable difference between lenses of a comparable zoom range with a constant aperture throughout, and what you feel the most important differences are, e.g. low light performance, bokeh, etc.

I am thinking about adding one lens or another to my bag, and while it seems I could save some money and weight going with the f4 versions, I don't want to find myself wishing I has spent the extra for the faster lens.

In my particular case I would be looking at Nikon lenses, FWIW.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I am interested in learning from those with first ... (show quote)

I'm a Canon shooter, and I'll always go for the faster glass every time!:thumbup:

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I am interested in learning from those with first ... (show quote)

The difference in the lenses is ONE stop of light. Back in the days of film shooting one stop was a HUGE deal much of the time. With the advanced ISO capability of todays DSLR cameras its really not as big a deal as it once was. Two of my favorite lenses are the Nikon 16-35mm F4 and 24-120mm F4 lenses. I do own the 24-70mm and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses, but find I usually grab the F4 models first most of the time.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I am interested in learning from those with first ... (show quote)

It depends what the lens is, what you're going to use it for and whether you feel the cost difference is worth it.
I bought a 70-200mm f/4 lens recently to use with wild life---mainly shore birds at the beach. There was a 70-200mm f/2.8 model available but it's cost was much greater than the f/4. I didn't feel that, for me, the extra speed would be worth the cost. Especially since I would be using it mostly during the day in bright sunlight.
Let us know what you choose. Good luck.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The one fstop is, with digital cameras, almost never of any significance. It's everything that goes with it.

On the plus side, potential for a narrower depth of field, and a potential for a sharper image at f/4 and maybe even at f/5.6. A little harder to itemize... most f/2.8 lenses are simply higher quality because the reason they exist is to be the best, while an f/4 version is usually an effort to provide an economical alternative.

On the down side, f/2.8 lenses are in fact going to be more expensive to produce. They are going to be bigger and heavier.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

MT Shooter wrote:

The difference in the lenses is ONE stop of light. Back in the days of film shooting one stop was a HUGE deal much of the time. With the advanced ISO capability of todays DSLR cameras its really not as big a deal as it once was. Two of my favorite lenses are the Nikon 16-35mm F4 and 24-120mm F4 lenses. I do own the 24-70mm and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses, but find I usually grab the F4 models first most of the time.

Understood re: one stop. And the newer f4 versions have newest VR as well.

My other concern is depth of field. How much difference would there be in the 70-200 lens between the f2.8 and f4 models? I am primarily shooting table setting, candid wedding shots (at a distance), and close-up decor details.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Understood re: one stop. And the newer f4 versions have newest VR as well.

My other concern is depth of field. How much difference would there be in the 70-200 lens between the f2.8 and f4 models? I am primarily shooting table setting, candid wedding shots (at a distance), and close-up decor details.

At 70mm and F2.8 you have 1 foot DOF at 10 feet away. With F4 you have 1.47 feet DOF at the same distance.
At 200mm and 100 feet distance F4 gives you 18.3 feet DOF while F2.8 only gives 12.9 feet. The difference will be in what you are actually looking for. Both lenses will yield the same DOF at equal apertures.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

As Mac said...it depends.

It's the difference between getting ISO 1600 vs ISO 3200 out of a shot when you might already be pushing it a bit in Lightroom and cannot afford another full stop of grain.

If it's a landscape tourist lens..I wouldn't give it a second thought...f/4 would be fine.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Thanks, all. More food for thought. I won't be rushing into this anytime soon, maybe in the winter.

MT, where did you pull your DOF stats from? I would like to compare FX and DX, as I use lenses on both D700 and D7100.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Thanks, all. More food for thought. I won't be rushing into this anytime soon, maybe in the winter.

MT, where did you pull your DOF stats from? I would like to compare FX and DX, as I use lenses on both D700 and D7100.

Google DOFMaster.com, excellent online DOF calculator

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

MT Shooter wrote:

Google DOFMaster.com, excellent online DOF calculator

thx

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

[quote=MT Shooter]The difference in the lenses is ONE stop of light. Back in the days of film shooting one stop was a HUGE deal much of the time. With the advanced ISO capability of todays DSLR cameras its really not as big a deal as it once was. Two of my favorite lenses are the Nikon 16-35mm F4 and 24-120mm F4 lenses. I do own the 24-70mm and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses, but find I usually grab the F4 models first most of the time.[/quot
There are models I'd like to grab also

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Understood re: one stop. And the newer f4 versions have newest VR as well.

The newer f/2.8 versions also have the latest VR... :-)

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

My other concern is depth of field. How much difference would there be in the 70-200 lens between the f2.8 and f4 models? I am primarily shooting table setting, candid wedding shots (at a distance), and close-up decor details.

That depends on the camera (DX or FX), the focal length, and the fstop. You can look it up for exactly what interests you:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

And example would be using an FX camera, focused at 10 feet and at 100mm focal length, at f/2.8 the DOF is 5.8". At f/4 it is 8.5". With longer focal lengths the DOF is less, with 200mm at f/2.8 being on 1.4" and a f/4 being 2.1". At closer focus distances they are smaller and at longer focus distances they are larger.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I am interested in learning from those with first ... (show quote)

Let us know what you decide. Thanks for the question.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

I would suggest throwing the following into your list of considerations, Steve:

The faster, f/2.8 lenses will offer a brighter image in your viewfinder, a feature you may enjoy, as well as the shorter DOF which makes focusing both easier and faster (auto OR manual). So, if size or price are not objectionable, you may prefer the f/2.8 lenses over the f/4.0. It is, of course, totally your decision.

I hope you enjoy whatever it is you choose! :thumbup: