Glad to be of help, Mark. Thanks for the feedback!

Hi. So what did you choose?

Which one did you choose !?

Yes honest your video is very helpful full of knowledge and your honest thanks

The benefit of F2.8 is not to get the extra stop of light so much as the reduced depth of field.

+Stan Olszewski Thank you for your perspective! I could have kept both, but I sold the f/2.8 and have not regretted it. Love the light weight of the f/4 version, and I think it is actually a little bit sharper.

Glad you found the comparison helpful!

Thank you.

Exactly!!

Totally agree - btw are you a Kiwi?

2.8 can be just as sharp if you focus it right

Thank you! Glad I could help.

Worked for the newspapers? Wasn't f/8 your friend not f2.8? ;)

cream color

Thank you!

Hi.. is it compatible with the m50 viltrox speedbooster? I have also an m50 .. im planning to buy the F4 IS.. would appreciate if you ca reply. Thanks

reallyrightstuff.com

And yes... Dio does still rock

I have same did the lence work on it

It's best to start from reading a few books on photography. Lenses don't matter at all but I'm gonna give some in-depth advice here anyway. First of all, it's absolutely not necessary to have f/2.8 (f/4 is enough on full frames) unless you shoot portraits with a cropped sensor. Second, in portraiture it is more about lighting rather than lenses. You may go with the Godox X Pro + a few Godox flash guns. Third, for head shots a 100-120mm (it's 85mm on the crop sensor) looks best in my opinion. For full body shots 50mm is very good (it's 35mm on the crop sensor). Fourth, don't shoot only wide open, use various apertures. Something like using only f/1.4 or f/2.8 or opening aperture as wide as possible is a bad idea. I mean sometimes you may dabble with f/1.8 or something like that but generally there's a whole lot more to photography than just opening up aperture to the max, which by the way will make everything very unsharp except for the very center (it's more of a trick or of a special effect, and it should not be abused and should not replace all the photography. The same holds for bokeh). Fifth, for animals it's a wildlife lens, i.e. a strong telephoto lens, say, up to 400 or 600mm (for a cropped sensor it's up to 300 or 400mm). You may want to get rid of your full frame camera, as lenses are very expensive for this format and you will also ABSOLUTELY need some lighting equipment to become a better photographer than an iPhone photographer. If you are a total beginner, the good start is just a couple of Godox flashes + Godox X Pro. Sixth, don't disregard wide lenses. They produce beautiful results. It's the 16-35mm IS F/4 for full frame Canons. The full frame 100mm macro VR will also work nicely for portraits as well as will the new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens. And I want to emphasize that when it comes to wildlife photography, it is better to have 400-500mm on a full frame because otherwise your full frame will be a complete waste as you will have to crop it too much or constrain yourself to ducks or domestic animals. It's a very important point. Full frames are usually not the best idea for wildlife photography. I'm sorry if what I say looks harsh or like a critique. It's not. It's honest advice. If you can justify the expense of full frame lenses and cameras, it's not wrong to start from them right in the beginning. They are especially nice when it comes to wide angles and low light situations. And you can shoot anything with full frames. It's just that full frame lenses for wildlife are super-expensive. So many shoot wildlife on cropped sensors while using full frame sensors for portraiture and landscapes. If the budget permits, a photographer can shoot landscapes and portraiture with a medium format camera and use full frame cameras for wildlife. It's just expensive to do so but it has a great advantage: you can crop photos more. The same holds for sports photographers. They just crop. They use very expensive super-telephoto lenses and then they can have the luxury of more cropping than would be possible with an already cropped sensor.

Sorry, no experience with Sigma. Borrow or rent a 70-200 and shoot a whole event at f/4. Did you get all your shots? If 2.8 would have got you more shots (or not), then you have your answer.

get the Tamron if you need 2.8 and don't mind the size. Good prices in the used market. much better than the Sigma. Trust me if you want gear looking isolation of your subject,you want 2.8. The Tamron lens A009 version specifically is not far from the Canon usm ii version. Only get the F4 if size is important to you.

I suppose I could be wrong, but seems like plastic on mine. Thanks for the note on weather sealing!

Nah, definitely a metal alloy. It was shiny and silver. I've also seen a dismantled one,.

Also the 2.8 Mkii has a closer focusing distance which massively helps with indoor photography, I found that with my f4 i was always backing up against walls trying to get focus!

The 4.0 IS version is weather sealed. The earlier non-IS version is not.

f4is is weather sealed, the non is version isn't.

i think the f4 autofocus doesnt work with the 80D autofocus system, i own the f2.8 II , and an 80D, works really well and really smooth

Idnawsi thanks :) I ended up being gifted from my nana the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 :'). maybe in the future I will look into a canon one :)

PoniesGirl26 it works i hve a canon 70d and use the 70-200 f4

Autofocus works absolutely perfectly with the 80D

IS is key with your question. 2.8 is better in lowlight and for background blur

You still my thought😂😂

at least thats what a few other reviews say

Graham Gillett so you couldnt learn or understand stuff? ¡¡ Good gracious!!

Apologies. Working on better audio for future videos.

Graham Gillett trolling.

Definitely trolling. He's basically said the same thing in 3 separate comments

That's because the same thing is on more than just this video. If you are going to make a video then do it properly first time!

Graham Gillett be nice bruh, or you purchase the equipment and let him use it so video, etc is your liking oh king