🦪 Canon 70 200 F4 Vs F2 8

The reports on the 70-200 f4 ii say the IS gives you 4 handheld stops so for low light it's marginally better than the 3 stops you gain with the f2.8 ii. 2. burning1rr • 5 yr. ago. A benefit of the 2.8 is improved teleconverter performance. Throw a 1.4X TC on it, and you have a 100-300mm lens. The weight difference to the new 70-200 f/2.8L is the adapter only. It is also the height of the adapter taller. Here is a size comparison curtesy of camerasize.com. Adapted EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS vs. RF 70-200/4L IS and RF 70-200/2.8L IS. Edit: Also have the control ring based adapter so I get that functionality already with the EF lens. The Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS II ($1,699.99) is an upgrade across the board to the original version from nearly a decade ago, which was among the earliest full-frame E-mount lenses. This new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is III USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Renewed) $1,759. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens. $1,995. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Telephoto Lens for Digital SLR Cameras 3044C002AA. $1,750. Canon 24-105 vs 70-200 f4 is. Jul 4, 2013. I realize that this has been debated before, but my concern isn't so much about the IQ of the lenses. Just asking for some opinions so I don't have to purchase and resell lenses so much. (I currently own a 5d mark ii, Sigma 35 1.4, a 50 1.8-version 1, a broken 17-40 and a 480exII) Re: Canon 70-200 IS f4 vs f2.8 I & II. In reply to rsdofny • Feb 23, 2011. First, both the f4 IS and both of the f2.8 IS lenses offer fantastic optics, superior build, and first rate performance. Any "which is better" in these regards is going to splitting hairs at most and inconsequential at the least. A major upgrade of Canon’s popular 70-200mm f/4 IS lens, the new Mark II remains relatively compact and lightweight, but packs a heavyweight punch in terms of performance. The speed and accuracy EF 70-200mm f/4 vs RF 70-200mm f/4. I've been looking into getting a 70-200mm type lens for my EOS RP. If money was no object I'd probably go with the RF versions since it seems to have some slight advantages but I found some great deals that made me question whether the EF might be the way to go. The RF F/4 goes for around 1250 euros while I I wholeheartedly think the Tamron is sharper and likely has better stabilization. But I don't think they can match Canon on the AF. It may be close on the bare lens, but introduce a 1.4x or 2.0x and I bet the Canon stands out. That said, I can't honestly say one is a clear winner over the other. Cons. Some distortion. Large. Not an f/2.8 zoom. The Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS ($1,499.99) is a telephoto zoom lens for Sony's full-frame mirrorless camera system. A 70-200mm zoom is the go-to Weight-wise, the 70-200mm f/4G VR is a bliss – at 850 grams, it is 50 grams lighter than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and almost twice lighter than the f/2.8 VR II. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8G, but after a couple of wedding seasons, I find myself using lighter prime lenses instead. Those that use the lens on a pro body like D4 and shoot all day The Tamron 70-200 VC has noticeably better image quality than the Sigma 70-200 OS at f/2.8. The differences are less noticeable at f/4, but the Tamron remains the image quality leader except at 200mm where the Sigma performs better in the corners. You buy a 70-200 f/2.8 to use at f/2.8. Otherwise, buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. It BHiW3.

canon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8