F4 the new F2.8 (Page 3): Of course with the RF mount the 70-200mm f2.8 is substantially smaller and lighter than the rest of the similar lenses on the market. Thus fulfilling the...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ggab wrote:

In the Canon EF world of large Prime and Zoom lens... (show quote)

Of course with the RF mount the 70-200mm f2.8 is substantially smaller and lighter than the rest of the similar lenses on the market. Thus fulfilling the clamor for a mirrorless camera that is lighter and smaller yet has pro lenses of pro IQ and build.

MountainDave

Since I'm 68 and still doing long hikes and climbs, weight is a constant consideration. Especially with zooms, everything is a compromise---aperture, weight, IS, IQ and price. Different people weigh them differently. It's great to have choices. I do think having a 2.8 for my 24-70 workhorse zoom is a huge plus. I also enjoy using primes with even bigger apertures. One of my favorites is a 135 f/2L. When I really want to save weight on a hike, I'll sometimes bring a pancake 40mm or nifty 50 instead of the 2 lb zoom. So far, the mirrorless models aren't a big enough weight saving to make me switch but that could change.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Fotomacher wrote:

My experience is that an f/2.8 at f/4 will render a better image than an f/4 lens at f/4.

The Nikon 300 f4, 500 f4, and 600 f4 give beautiful exposures wide open. Super sharp all and meant to be used wide open.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MountainDave wrote:

Since I'm 68 and still doing long hikes and climbs... (show quote)

Look at the Canon RP and 70-200mm f2.8.
Much smaller and substantially lighter than anything else on the market.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

MountainDave wrote:

Since I'm 68 and still doing long hikes and climbs... (show quote)

👍👍 The 135 f2L will make you a believer in fast primes. Even with the Canon 1.4x extender (providing ~190mm at f2.8), it’s still sharper than my 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm (both wide open).

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I use both F2.8 and F4 but under different circumstances. In some cases I have the same lens in both versions. Two good examples are the Nikon 70-200 and 24-70. The F4 version of the 24-70 is an S lens meant for mirrorless. I regularly use them all depending upon assignment/situation. I appreciate the weight savings of the F4 (the 300 F4 PF is a good example) but I wouldn't trade my 400 2.8 for night sports or more limited DOF helping me blow backgrounds. Each has a place. When I move to indoor sports, I use several F1.4 and F1.8 lenses. Best of luck.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Architect1776 wrote:

Not too long ago f2.8 was not considered that fast.
But on long lenses that was the best you could do and push your B&W film as far as possible.

Yes, in the film era 2.8 was a SLOW lens ! - and all lenses were primes !

Today, it is not so much about exposure as it still is about subject isolation/artistic photography - mostly of people - or low light fast action.
.

sshus924 Loc: South Florida, USA

One of the main benefits of f2.8 is the brighter viewing in the optical viewfinder. Most times we don’t shoot at that aperture for depth of field reasons. I have the Canon 70-200 f4 ver2 and at f4 is as sharp as my f2.8 at f4.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

The key to carrying a 2-6 lb f/2.8 lens is to just attach it to a 3 lb body...😳😎

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

lamiaceae wrote:

I'm old school (first real camera in 1978). I sti... (show quote)

Panasonic Leica have a 10-25mm f/1.7 zoom. It has a full frame focal length field of view equivalence of 10-50mm! It is quite sharp and contrasty, and it replaces the 20, 24, 28, 35, 40, and 50mm primes we used to use on Nikons and Canons in the film days. ONE LENS. Yes, it's big, heavy, and not image stabilized, but that's quite a range. $1798.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

burkphoto wrote:

Panasonic Leica have a 10-25mm f/1.7 zoom. It has a full frame focal length field of view equivalence of 10-50mm! It is quite sharp and contrasty, and it replaces the 20, 24, 28, 35, 40, and 50mm primes we used to use on Nikons and Canons in the film days. ONE LENS. Yes, it's big, heavy, and not image stabilized, but that's quite a range. $1798.

Sounds like a good lens
I am guessing you meant 20-50mm.
No problem I understood and at f1.7 that is awesome.

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

For me, the biggest difference is focus in low light conditions. I had an f/4 lens not focus where the f/2.8 did.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Architect1776 wrote:

Sounds like a good lens
I am guessing you meant 20-50mm.
No problem I understood and at f1.7 that is awesome.

Yes, 20-50... oops!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

sshus924 wrote:

One of the main benefits of f2.8 is the brighter viewing in the optical viewfinder. Most times we don’t shoot at that aperture for depth of field reasons. I have the Canon 70-200 f4 ver2 and at f4 is as sharp as my f2.8 at f4.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS has always been one of their sharpest zooms.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Blurryeyed wrote:

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS has always been one of their sharpest zooms.