With my 5D MK III is an f/2.8 lens really needed???

[ryllz75]

Hi All,

I've been mulling over this since I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II this past weekend. Not sure if its buyers remorse or rookie mistake in not realizing the capabilities of my new 5d MK III.

I currently use a 5d MK III and while using my 24-105L f/4 i noticed that I can easily shoot dimly lit indoor scene (church wedding, night indoor events, etc.) just by bumping up the ISO to 8000-10000 and the images look very good still! I have not notice any drastic increases in noise and even so I can get it out using software. Now I have not tried printing these shots yet BUT even in 100% crop the images looks good.

Is there any merit to this line of thinking that f/4 lenses are good enough to use for dimly lit scnese using the 5d MK III? Should i exchange the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II with the 70-200 f/4 IS and save the $900 difference and apply that to a 16-35 MK II or the 35 L? Your opinions/experience would be great on this! thanks in advance!

 

[kubelik]

it depends on a lot of things. it sounds like you have a higher tolerance for image noise than most other folks here. are you shooting at these venues for personal or professional reasons? I would think the big deal regarding f/2.8 in these situations is the impact it has upon the autofocus system. if you're happy with what you're getting now with f/4 lenses, and you feel that f/2.8 isn't contributing anything for your photography, well, it doesn't really matter what anyone else on the forum thinks. the proof is in your own pudding.

 

[Dylan777]

I wouldn't go over 6400 ISO with 5D III. I know it's doable up to 12K ISO, but why work on high ISO photos when you can have cleaner photos at lower ISO.

One thing for sure, you can always step down from f2.8 to f4, but not the other way around

Enjoy your f2.8 IS II.

 

[Aaron78]

2.8 also gives a much nicer background blur, and can be shot at 2.8 without IQ loss. I wouldn't trade my 70-200 2.8 is II for anything......well, except for a 600 f4 is II

 

[Zlatko]

I've been mulling over this since I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II this past weekend. Not sure if its buyers remorse or rookie mistake in not realizing the capabilities of my new 5d MK III.

I currently use a 5d MK III and while using my 24-105L f/4 i noticed that I can easily shoot dimly lit indoor scene (church wedding, night indoor events, etc.) just by bumping up the ISO to 8000-10000 and the images look very good still! I have not notice any drastic increases in noise and even so I can get it out using software. Now I have not tried printing these shots yet BUT even in 100% crop the images looks good.

Is there any merit to this line of thinking that f/4 lenses are good enough to use for dimly lit scnese using the 5d MK III? Should i exchange the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II with the 70-200 f/4 IS and save the $900 difference and apply that to a 16-35 MK II or the 35 L? Your opinions/experience would be great on this! thanks in advance!

I have both lenses and with the 5DIII I can now use the 70-200/4 IS in many situations where I used to use the 70-200/2.8 IS. The 5DIII is great at high ISO, certainly better than the 5DII. So I have thought about selling the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is much lighter and easier to carry. The difference in subject isolation between f/4 vs. f/2.8 is not that great with a telephoto lens. On the other hand, the f/2.8 lens is great to have for low light situations, such as when shooting at twilight, or when a higher shutter speed is needed to stop action, or when a teleconverter is used. So I will probably keep both and carry the one that's better suited to the circumstances. The 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great lens. I would keep it unless you really need the extra $$$ or you mind the size & weight.

 

[kubelik]

No offense, but a very noob question. Makes me even wonder why you have a 5D3. And you didn't seem to know what you're buying into with the 70-200. Too much money to burn?

But to answer your question, IQ demands the lowest ISOs and the fastest shutter speeds. F/2.8 may not even be enough depending on the situation. In your case you say f/4 is good enough.

Just return it - and don't buy any lenses for the meantime. Develop your skills first and master what gear you have, and when you do you'll know exactly what you need to buy next.

that's a little harsh. I think there's actually a lot of merit to the question. depending on your usage, some people end up shooting their f/2.8 lens at f/4 anyway to maintain sufficient DOF. and it's not like the 70-200 f/4 IS ain't sharp wide open. the weight savings is also significant when you're running around with it all day.

I use my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II all the time but that doesn't mean that using the f/4 version may not be the right fit for some other folks.

 

[pwp]

Come on ryllz75, this is being handled on your other thread on basically the same subject. You got a lot of generous feedback from photographers from all sorts of backgrounds and skill levels and the consensus was so strongly in favour of the 70-200 f/2.8isII it was ridiculous. Don't let contrary posts undermine your decision to get the lens used by most Canon professionals for very valid reasons.

Too much Q&A can be deadly. Just get to know your 5D3 & new lens and shoot as much and as often as you can. Back your own decision to buy high quality gear and get to work!

-PW

 

[nonac]

From shooting some indoor sports, i.e. volleyball and basketball, I found that f/2.8 wasn't enough. I bought a 135 f/2 and that full stop made a lot of difference. I am now able to keep the ISO no higher than 6400 and keep the shutter speed I need to stop the action. It is really dependent on the noise you can tolerate and what you will be photographing.

 

[robbymack]

It certainly begs the question as to whether or not f2.8 zooms need to be in your bag if you are ok with a little noise. In fact a lot of times the trade off between the speed of 2.8 vs 4 comes at the expense of dof when in reality you want both the speed and dof. I am part of the f2.8 isn't really enough to stop most action crowd so I've been very happy with my f4 IS. When I need the speed I take a 135L...or some speed lights.

 

[PeterJ]

Take a few outdoor portraits at 200 f/2.8 and see what you think of the look versus 105 f/4. Personally I use my 70-200 at 2.8 a lot and really like the isolation and OOF background.

 

[PackLight]

If your only reason for buying the f/2.8 over the f/4 is the one stop advantage it has with noise then you missed many of the reasons to own the f/2.8. Yes go ahead and return it.

However once you buy the 35mm f/1.4 L you may be disappointed as well, as it isn't this lens ability to give you a stop or two of noise reduction that make it great. The 35mm is a great lens because of it's ability to be shot close to wide open and produce sharp images with a beautiful thin DOF.

What makes the 70-200mm f/2.8 II a great lens is it's ability to be shot wide open making near prime quality pics without being stoped down. Throw the f/2.8 DOF for a bit of icing.

Save your noise reduction for your software and ISO settings.

 

[wickidwombat]

you gotta be kidding! i've been in situations shooting at 1.4 on a 50 f1.4 and its still ruinning ISO 12,500 to 16,000 the 5Dmk3 is simply awesome in this regard and coupled with LR4 it's brilliant for low light events where you might not be using flash

 

[Loswr]

I wouldn't trade my 70-200 2.8 is II for anything......well, except for a 600 f4 is II

Yeah, but the latter is really hard to use in your living room.

 

[PackLight]

I wouldn't trade my 70-200 2.8 is II for anything......well, except for a 600 f4 is II

Yeah, but the latter is really hard to use in your living room.

Not redneck style, just knock out the back window screen, set up the bird feeder, position the lazy boy and tripod properly and your in business.

 

[sanj]

you gotta be kidding! i've been in situations shooting at 1.4 on a 50 f1.4 and its still ruinning ISO 12,500 to 16,000 the 5Dmk3 is simply awesome in this regard and coupled with LR4 it's brilliant for low light events where you might not be using flash

Absolutely!!!

OP: Keep the lens. It is a great lens and investment.

 

[lucuias]

5D Mark III + 70-200 F/2.8 is a great combination my friend.Aside the awesome shallow depth of field,I do sometimes turn off the flash and shoot with only available light at high ISO.

Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 8000
Exposure: 1/80 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Focal Length: 70mm

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In extreme low light, I switch to primes, because I find that f/2.8 does not quite make it for many shots.
I use my 35mmL, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.
I could use a f/2.8 lens at ISO 12800, but I prefer a lower ISO setting unlless I'm really in a bind. As it is, a few shots will always end up at f/1.4 and ISO 12800 thats ok when its just a few.
I tried using my 24-105mmL for a few images last year, it was a exercise in fuzzy images shot at too low of a shutter speed. My subjects move, so IS doesn't stop motion, and flash is banned in a theatre.
I'd recommend sticking to a minimum of f/2.8, but you know best how much light you have.
Here is one when I was trying out a D800 and the f/2.8 lens was as fast as I had. Its ISO 6400 with a ton of nr, and losing a lot of detail. Fortunately, the D800 had a lot of detail, so it wasn't too bad.

My 1D MK IV at ISO 12800 and f/1.8

 

[M.ST]

If you want to shoot in low light and stop cation you need a f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0 or f/2.8 lens.

I like the EF 135mm f/2L USM and the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.

 

[MarkII]

Is there any merit to this line of thinking that f/4 lenses are good enough to use for dimly lit scnese using the 5d MK III?

I do not think that you can get a meaningful answer to this question since no one here really knows what you shoot, what style you like, your budget, and so on...

Re the 70-200 f2.8 vs f4, you should answer really the question yourself. Since you have the 2.8, use it to take the photographs that you bought it for in the style that you want, and then look at the resulting pictures to see how many were at f4 or below and how many were shot at a speed that needed IS. Obviously you will need to shoot in a mode that leaves you to choose the aperture to do this.

Re the other lenses, again, you should know whether or not you want to buy a 16-35 zoom vs a 35mm prime (or both) simply from the kind of pictures and framing that you want to take.

If you are still at a stage where you are not sure what pictures you want to take and how to take them, I would suggest buying a set of zooms covering a wide range. If budget and weight are an issue, buy the cheapest/lightest options or buy second hand. Spend some time (months or years...!) shooting. Look at the results and ask what you would like to improve and what pictures you simply could not take. Use that to work out what equipment you need.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I think one of the benefits of FF is the shallow DoF you can get for an equivalent FoV (compared to smaller sensors). So f/2.8 is better than f/4.
However, it really depends on usage. I think I shall have to make a decision between keeping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (or getting the MkII) vs getting a 70-200 f/4 IS AND the 135 f/2 when I go full frame. Note that either way the cost will be similar, so it boils down to whether I want the convenience of a fast zoom compared to the versatility offered by the combination of a slower but more portable (and more likely to be carried) zoom and a faster prime for shallow DoF and larger aperture when needed.