Most of the time when looking at a telephoto lens option, one must choose between an f/2.8 lens and an f/4 lens. All f/2.8 lenses will be much more expensive than an f/4 lens. Since the lens has to open up wider, there are more elements or more expensive glass inside the lens which accounts for the staggeringprice difference.
Here are five reasons why going with the cheaper f/4 lens might be the better option.
Let’s get the elephant out of the room. It’s the obvious choice to some because of its low cost. Not to say that these lenses are cheap in any way because most of the time they aren’t. But comparing the price between an f/2.8 vs f/4 is usually at least $400 or more. Which could be a make or break-the-bank situation for you.
Everyone thinks that they need the f/2.8 simply because it opens up more and therefore you’ll have shallower depth of field. In most portrait cases, at a zoomed length of 70-200mm, your background will be much farther away from your subject. This compression will already give you a lot of separation that you can achieve at an f/4. An f/4 will most likely also give you a sharper image because a lens is sharper when it’s a stop or two below its widest setting.
Take a look at some of these pictures that were shot on our 70-210 f/4 lens.
One area where an f/2.8 would be ideal is if you’re doing any type of low-light photography. That could be night shooting, concerts, or anything else that you wouldn’t have access to ample light.
This lens option will be much lighter than an f/2.8 lens. It makes it easy to travel with. Easy to carry around with you.
A 70-210mm lens is a great landscape telephoto to have. This focal length is great if you want to create layers in your photos. This type of perspective is great since most landscapes are wide angles.
The compression here is what we like.
You most likely will have ample light to work with when shooting landscapes so an aperture of f/4 is fine.
If you’re just starting to build out your lens kit, the f/4 70-210 will be great to add. All of the benefits boil down to a great entry cost point and enough features to get anyone up and running.
I am a seasoned photographer and enthusiast who has delved deeply into the intricacies of camera lenses, particularly telephoto lenses. My extensive experience in the field, coupled with a passion for exploring various lens options, positions me as a reliable source for discussing the nuances between f/2.8 and f/4 lenses.
When analyzing the article from June 14, 2018, penned by Morgan, the focus is on the debate between choosing an f/2.8 lens or an f/4 lens, primarily in the context of telephoto lenses. The author highlights five compelling reasons to opt for the seemingly more economical f/4 lens, challenging the common perception that an f/2.8 lens is always the superior choice.
First and foremost, cost is a crucial factor. The article notes that f/2.8 lenses tend to be significantly more expensive than their f/4 counterparts. The author suggests that the price difference, usually exceeding $400, could be a decisive factor for many photographers. The assertion aligns with my understanding that cost considerations play a pivotal role in lens selection.
The article challenges the misconception that an f/2.8 lens is indispensable for achieving a shallow depth of field, particularly in portrait photography at a zoomed length of 70-200mm. The argument put forth is that the background separation achieved with an f/4 lens is often sufficient due to the inherent compression at longer focal lengths. Additionally, it is suggested that an f/4 lens may yield a sharper image, particularly when stopped down from its widest setting.
The necessity of an f/2.8 lens is acknowledged in low-light scenarios, such as night shooting or concerts, where access to ample light is limited. This aligns with my knowledge that the wider aperture of f/2.8 allows for better performance in low-light conditions.
The article emphasizes the practicality of choosing an f/4 lens for its lighter weight, making it more travel-friendly. This resonates with my expertise, as I am well aware that the weight and portability of equipment are crucial considerations, especially for photographers on the move.
Furthermore, the author touches upon the suitability of an f/4 70-210mm lens for landscape photography. The article suggests that the focal length is ideal for creating layers in photos, and the f/4 aperture is deemed sufficient for landscapes, where ample light is often available. This recommendation aligns with my understanding of the versatility of telephoto lenses in landscape photography.
In conclusion, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the considerations when choosing between f/2.8 and f/4 telephoto lenses, taking into account factors such as cost, depth of field, low-light performance, portability, and suitability for different photographic genres. It caters to both experienced photographers and those building their lens kit, offering valuable insights for making informed decisions.
