Photography

A stop of difference

Two.

My Minolta Beercan has a maximum aperture of f4 at which it is as sharp as a very sharp thing in a razor blade factory. But it weighs enough to give me the trembles.

All depends on the available light where you are shooting.

F2.8 lenses are bigger, weigh more and cost a good bit more. Can't tell you if it is worth it for a stop of light. Not enough information was provided.

Depending on what kind of sports you're doing, 2.8 will be MUCH better for indoors and worth the extra money. I've been shooting pro wrestling a lot this year and for our outdoors shows, I'd be fine with f/4's, but the moment we aren't it is 100% a need for 2.8.

IMO 70-200 2.8 is worth every penny.

Also depending on your camera mount, a 70-200 2.8 from Tamron or Sigma might be worth it. If you're on Sony or Nikon you could even consider the 35-150 2-2.8.

It depends on whether the sport is outdoors or indoors. If there's an abundance of light, the f4 lens should perform very favorably as far autofocus speed and accuracy.

What body, DSLR or Mirrorless? If DSLR, I would buy a clean used F2.8 with image stabilization. If Mirrorless, an F4 with IS will be fine.

It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. F4 is great for saving weight and cost, but you’ll always wonder “what if?”

If you can afford it, get the 2.8, if you can’t, get the 4 and use it and test to see if you really need the 2.8, lenses hold their value well so you can always trade up. And of course, you can rent to try before you buy either.

It’s noticeable, but the advantage you’ll get shooting sports is the faster shutter speeds you can get. If you’re serious about what you want to photograph it’ll be worth the extra money. Just make sure you’re going to use it enough to make it worthwhile. The last long zoom I bought I ended up selling because I rarely actually needed it.

The longer your lens, the more shutter speed you want.

The more active the sport (say basketball vs golf), the more shutter speed you want.

The less light in the venue, the bigger f/stop you want.

All of those say F/2.8 over F/4. If you want to save money, give up a few millimeters on the long end. I bought a 70-180/2.8 Tamron, and I don't miss that 20mm on the long end. The lens is a lot more compact as well. Also shoot raw, high ISO, and use really good denoising software. But it's always better to have sharp, noisy photos than fuzzy, smooth photos.

if you dont know what is the diference, you should buy nothing....

If money ain't the problem get the f/2.8 and you'll get both apertures. Imma just tell you I have a 70-200 f/2.8 and that thing is heavy as hell. And quite big aswell

The difference is a factor of two.

IMHO, yes, it is worth it.

The 70-200 2.8 is a super versatile lens, you can do sports, portraits, landscape, etc. This is one of those that you buy once and you keep for 10+ years.

I got a 2nd hand Tamron 2.8 and is super fast and super sharp at 2.8. It was expensive but didnt break the bank.

IMHI is a long term investment you wont regret.

It’s one stop of light.

About 1 stop.

Up to you of course, but yeah many people and most photographers would see a big difference between 2.8 and 4 in many situations. Sports photography is generally tough since pros use excellent lenses that are fast and long.

One stop. The difference between 1/500 and 1/1000 second, or 6400 ISO and 12800 ISO. Plus double the background separation.

It’s twice the light. Useful for shutter speed and focus sensitivity. Focus speed and accuracy depend based on lenses in question. If you are shooting in daylight an f/4 will be plenty. At a well lit big event f/4 is plenty. As things get dark, fast action, and you are closer in(requiring higher shutter speeds to stop action of players) that’s where the f/2.8 may be needed. With digital, high speed ISOs are so good, that it often makes sense for the enthusiast to jump from 3200 to 6400 rather than spend another $1000 on a lens. If you are making a living with it as a primary lens, just buy the fast glass.

the 2.8 means double the light from f4 but also double the price lol

My 70-200 GM II is still burning my wallet.

1-stop of everything. Exposure, brightness, uhhh.... weight. Like the EF 70-200/4 is half as heavy as the 2.8.

If you shoot indoors, you'll likely want an f/2.8. It's the difference between 1600 and 3200 iso or 1/250 and 1/500 shutter speed. I'd never shoot anything indoors (unless it was professionally lit) without f/2.8 lenses.

​

If you're inexperienced with shooting sports, I'd suggest renting a lens and trying it out. Some people who try to shoot sports/concert photography for the first time get very bad results because their settings aren't right. Use the rental experience as a learning process on what equipment you should buy.

You can use a lower ISO or a higher shutter speed.

I've shot volleyball indoors with both lenses. I'd rather use the f/4 because it's lighter. The shutter or ISO difference wasn't worth it.

If you ever shoot sports in the evening as the sun is going down, you will have to have a 2.8 lens.

If you always shoot in great sun in the middle of the day or with strong lighting, then a 4.0 will be great.

I have both at 300mm. I take the 4.0 to golf tournaments starting in the morning as the sun gets brighter during the day. I take the 2.8 to softball games that start in the evening and the light gets dimmer and dimmer. I've never taken both.

With the 2.8 you can shoot longer into the gradually lessening light...

And heck, buy used. You can get some amazing lenses that may not be cutting edge technology but still take spectacular photos.

For sporting events getting as much light as possible is pretty important because you're probably going to be shooting at a very fast shutter speed.

That being said I use a 200-500mm f/5.6 and can still avoid going too high with the iso (though mostly outside during the day) and I usually shoot at f/8 so I think f/4 is still going to be okay.

Whether a lens is 'worth it' really comes down to what you want to do with it. The f/2.8 is more expensive as there are usually more glass elements, etc. incorporated into its design. But you'll get double the amount of light to the camera's sensor compared with f/4 (sharpness can also improve at the same aperture but it's a long story!). So for sports action/low light photography, it's generally a winner. However, the question here is really whether the additional expense is worth it? Only you can answer that question! Good luck.

If you shoot inside in uncontrollable lighting situations you will need the 2.8. It's pretty much that simple. F4 fine for lit stage indoors, or studio obviously, but other than that I'm packing my 2.8 indoors.

For sports? Massive difference at night. Highly advise.

If you are shooting high school sports, or even lower level college sports, it’s not questionable. It’s the 2.8 and it’s not close.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to try to shoot football at a shitty high school field when the game starts an hour after sunset and there are only two sets of barely functioning lights in the middle of the field … 25 yards away from the action.

In those situations, F4 is going to be completely unusable.

Hell. It’s hard to even use F2.8 and get decent shots in those situations where you’re cranking your ISO to 6400 and your shutter speed down to 1/500 because it’s the slowest speed you can use and still get action.

If you’re shooting in easy peasy lighting situations, sure, save the money. But if you’re doing this professionally, you HAVE to invest in the best glass.

I regret buying a 2.8. it is much more expensive and the new cameras are so good with high iso that you cant notice the noise anyway.

Which camera are you using?

1 stop.

The difference between being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and ISO 3200. Or ISO 3200 and ISO 1600. Or 12800 and 6400.

Depending on how your camera and sensor handles noise, this may be more or less meaningful to you.

1.2 ;) is the difference :D

I am no expert but I would say f/1.2 difference.