70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot

[keriboi]

Going to the Zoo this weekend and hiring a Canon 6D and some lens. Will also take my 50D. Unfortunatly no 7d2 for hire.

Forecast is for cloudy. How much better off will I be with the 2.8II than the F4 Non IS?
If I get the f4 I can also get a 24mm 1.4 to play with over the weekend.

I could get a longer lens but I will be doing some portrait stuff so I need the 70mm

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

 

[MiG31_Foxhound]

...and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

Not to mention whatever dust, fingerprints, or other imperfections might be on the glass in some enclosures. Definitely go with the /2.8.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
Easy to carry, fast as heck!

 

[DominoDude]

If you have the chance: Go for the f/2.8. Preferably with IS.
I have the f/4 in its IS version, and it's at least as sharp and good as the f/2.8, but, as mentioned, a thinner DOF will help you in blurring fences and the such. The "magic" of the f/2.8 is worth it.

 

[jdramirez]

The zoo I go to has indoor and out door exhibits. F2.8 is better for indoors, but I'd encourage you to maybe go even wider, maybe the sigma 50 art. For distance shots, I'd suggest the f2.8L unless weight is a concern then I would suggest the f4L.

 

[Maximilian]

Most of the time I am at the zoo i use my 100-400L. But at the Nürnberg Zoo animals can be quite far away.
So 200 mm is not always enough. So reach depends on your circumstances.

I could get a longer lens but I will be doing some portrait stuff so I need the 70mm

Reading this and understanding, that you want the 70-200 also for this portrait stuff I'd say the F2.8 (esp. V2 with IS) is a must for that purpose.
Enjoy the trip and the great equipment.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned all of the Canon EF 70-200mm lenses, and currently have the f/2.8 MK II, merely because I use it in extreme low light. Otherwise, for outdoor use or carrying around, my f/4 IS was my choice.


The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

 

[jdramirez]

I've owned all of the Canon EF 70-200mm lenses, and currently have the f/2.8 MK II, merely because I use it in extreme low light. Otherwise, for outdoor use or carrying around, my f/4 IS was my choice.


The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

It really depends on whether he will be shooting in indoor facilities. Honestly, if he opts to do two lenses, I would lean to the f4, but one alone, I'd lean towards the f2.8.... but one stop of light is just that, one stop... even with the 6d... that's why I suggested the 50 art.8x more light than the f4... reptiles , mammals and birds.... oh my.

 

[caMARYnon]

The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

Agreed. I own both and my option is f4IS.

 

[keriboi]

Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is

 

[ihendy]

Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is

Good choice. I've own the 2.8 II and owned the non IS f4 which I sold shortly after the 2.8 purchase. If I want light - I'll use the 135 f2.0. 2.8 is great for zoo as it easy to use indoors and out and a great focal range. It blurs the background better. Add a 2x III tele and you got 400 mm at 5.6 which is good for zoo animals who tend to be more static. Definately a versitile choice. Grab a BR type strap though because it's heavy.

 

[icassell]

I shot gazillions of excellent zoo images with the Sigma 100-300 f/4 before I bought my Canon 70-200/2.8 II. The f/4 was usually plenty wide and the 300mm end was nice. Now that I have the 70-200, I will often put on a TC, so the f/2.8 is helpful as it gets cranked to f/4 when I put on the 1.4X. I actually miss the Sigma a bit when I'm shooting at the zoo -- the FL range was perfect.

 

[takesome1]

If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

This is the best answer you have received so far.
Last year I went to shoot the tiger cubs at the zoo. They were fun to shoot but F/2.8 II was a must because of the chain link fence and the position you I had to shoot from. I also had my 300mm F/2.8 with me which even worked better when the tigers were far enough away.

 

[jdramirez]

If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.

This is the best answer you have received so far.
Last year I went to shoot the tiger cubs at the zoo. They were fun to shoot but F/2.8 II was a must because of the chain link fence and the position you I had to shoot from. I also had my 300mm F/2.8 with me which even worked better when the tigers were far enough away.

I hate fences... so much. I was shooting at f/1.2 and that damn fence was still there.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

If you're renting, consider the 70-300IS.

 

[jdramirez]

If you're renting, consider the 70-300IS.

The 70-300 is a bit soft from 200-300mm. The 70-300 L maybe but the variable aperture at f5.6... losing 2 stops of light might be a big downer.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I do a lot of zoo shooting (in fact I recently self-published a book called Zoos Of The Southwest). As others have alluded to, the main issue is shooting through fences. For this you need a long focal length and a large aperture. I have found a longer focal length to be the more critical of the two. 300mm seems to be the magic number for getting through a fence. Even a 300 5_6 works well much of the time. 200mm is almost too short and will only work with an aperture of at least 2_8. The 200 f4 may blur out fences in ideal circumstances, but often not. It sounds like you already decided on the 2_8, so that is a good choice.

I also briefly had the Sigma 100-300 f4 someone else mentioned. I bought it used for a good price, used it for a year and loved it, then the autofocus died and repair parts were unavailable. So now I use a Canon 70-200 2_8 (non IS) sometimes coupled with 1.4xii extender. This is a good combination, but the upcoming 100-400ii will really be the ideal zoo lens.

 

[Yeti]

You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

Odd and definitive point of view, others have given good reason to go for the 2.8.

As for the latter half of your statement, "monster"? That lens is hardly a monster lens unless you're Monty Burns...

 

[Khristo]

You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

Odd and definitive point of view, others have given good reason to go for the 2.8.

As for the latter half of your statement, "monster"? That lens is hardly a monster lens unless you're Monty Burns...

I don't think it's too odd to say you won't need f/2.8 much. Zoo shots are going to be mostly about up close and recording detail and you could lose a lot of that with shallow DOF. OOF fur not too interesting!

Depends on the zoo of course, but my last zoo trip was about shooting over fences or through glass - not so much through fences. On that trip I used my 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Having checked those shots, there are a lot with the 400mm, but those with the 70-200 tended to be at 200mm and few at wide apertures.

Only exception was a close up (through glass) of one gorilla grooming another - that was at f/3.2 and did benefit from a portraity shallow DOF. But definitely the exception.

So, I think there's little to be lost with the f/4, and if it allows you to play with a 24mm f/1.4 as well - bonus!