Dave Bergman makes several key points in comparing the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8. He gets into the added range of the 24-105, the greater depth control (bokeh) that the 24-70 has when it
Minimum Vs Maximum F-stop. In this f stop chart infographic, I have listed aperture values from f2.8 to f22. It is the commonly seen aperture range in many lenses. The actual minimum and maximum f-stop value will fully depend on the lens you are using. For Example, Canon 50mm f1.8 lens has a maximum aperture of f1.8 and a minimum aperture of
Even if you don't care about hitting f/2.8, the Sigma and Tamron f/2.8 lenses are simply better (though only slightly) than the Canon f/4s; for the people who are looking at the Canon f/4 as a way to save money, the Tamron 70-210 saves you even more for the same performance with a better warranty.
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 autofocus reliability alone is worth the extra price. Find a refurbished 70-200 IS USM II and it can be had around $1500. You won't regret it, I promise. It's my most used lens. The image quality is impeccable, it's built like a tank, rarely misses focus, and the bokeh is to die for.
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
y8xMW. sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/452sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/365sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/443sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/138sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/68sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/394sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/140sij8dpvabf.pages.dev/100
canon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8
