Later, I took a few shots with 70-200 f2.8 Sigma and several with 300mm f2.8 Sigma, but mostly with 24-105L. The latter is so versatile that I'd regard it as a must. SIgma 70-200 F2.8 at f2.8. The Canon would be a little sharper than this at this focal length, but not at shorter ones, where the Sigma is amazing. T. Crop from 24-105L. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM has a length of 200mm, but you also need to add on the 25mm for the Sigma MC-11 adapter. This brings the total length to 225mm. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras. $929. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is II Telephoto Zoom Lens USM, Model EF70-200LIS2 - International Version. $1,395. Canon SLR Lenses EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. 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. I've used both, the RF 70-200 f4 is remarkably better as far as image quality. Used you should be able to get one used for $1400-1500. You can get the EF 70-200 2.8 L ii for around the same price with an adapter but it's substantially larger and heavier for just a little more bokeh/lower ISO. IMO the RF 70-200 f4 is the way to go. Therefore, the 50-140/f2.8 is equivalent to the Canon 70-200/f4 when talking about speed (light gathering) only. You used "light gathering" in both sentences. I think one sentence must be false? perhaps you should use a different term. hint. Think water. There is a difference between current and flow rate. alexne wrote: Product description. The Canon EF 70-200 F4L IS II USM is a substantial upgrade over the original model. Its image stabilization now reduces shake by up to 5 stops (versus 3) and is quieter, the body is more durable and coatings have been added to reduce ghosting and flare as well as to keep fingerprints off of the front and rear elements. The The non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is actually an optically better lens than the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS (though the IS II is better than either of them). Optically, the f4 and the f2.8 are both excellent… is one of them is better, the difference is not significant. Apr 26, 2017 I'm getting ready to purchase a Canon 70-200mm either f2.8 or f4. I shoot primarly hockey in a indoor AHL rink that has fantastic lighting. This lens will go on a Canon 7D Mark II. With the high ISO performance of the 7D2, do you guys think I can get by with the f4? t44f.
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/867
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/363
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/380
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/555
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/349
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/234
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/249
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/823
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/426
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/204
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/419
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/635
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/801
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/476
  • hek59qo7p4.pages.dev/371

    • canon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8