Are F4 Zoom Lenses Really Good Enough?

[@AndrewIsaac-v7h]

I love Martin’s content. Not only does he give great practical advice but he’s an advocate for getting the most from the gear you already own, and to avoid ‘gear lust’ which most of us suffer from.

[@MartinCastein]

thank you!

[@sharpskilz]

the only people who care what lens youre rocking are other photographers. and they dont buy photos or pay photographers.

[@luzr6613]

Most importantly, i care what lenses i carry because they enable me to take the images i want - which is all that matters for me.

[@mudgie069]

I love my f/4 lenses. I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 non is f/4 lenses. I have no reason to upgrade to faster zooms and if I want more light, I'll use a prime. Great video.

[@lrfarias]

My set, exactly. If I want faster, f2.8 is usually not enough, so I go to f2 primes.

[@johnjon1823]

I will watch the video later BUT the answer is YES! Especially today a stop or two is less important IF you actually need the extra light, but for many many things I would not shoot at less than F8 or F11, landscapes and the like, and even the two legged critters. Have used that 24-150 F4L many times even in indoors (flash is a thing you know) plus when people are moving some extra DOF is a good thing. F4 is just fine with me. Now, would I like to have 2.8 or better on a zoom, sure, sometimes, but I have not found F4 to be any problem for what I do, again, flash is a thing if you need it. Besides, available light does not always give you the colors or crispness you may get from flash, and so F4 is again quite usable, in my experience. Others may disagree but for most things it is more than fine for me and in my experience. In fact with long zooms at a distance I like the most DOF I can get and I would likely not shoot F4, probably a minimum of 5.6 or F8 would be more like it as a minimum. Which is even more interesting if you use M43 lenses, closed down can be really the look I want, for landscapes and such, and especially real estate. I will watch later but could not resist the click-bait need to respond, so the title worked - good work there! God bless!

[@xcx8646]

I try to do everything with just two lenses: the 24-105 L and 50 1.8. I sometimes have periods of GAS, but I don't need any other lenses (I wouldn't mind a 6D and will buy one at some point). I use these lenses on a 5D mk I. Modest stuff but it produces wonderful images if I I do my part.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

Back when I had a 5dmk2 I used my 24-105L f4 vr 90% of the time, lovely bit of glass.

[@xcx8646]

@@RichardFraser-y9t I actually use the 50 most - by far. It makes for a small setup, so it's easy to have with me. I also like getting to know one focal length, and the aperture makes it useful as the 5D isn't the best in low light. But when I need or want the zoom, it's there.

[@superbug1977]

I am also fond of the 24-105 L-series lens. I've used it on the 5D classic, the 6D, the Canon RP, and the Canon R6 with wonderful results.

Absolutely! I own almost the same kit as yours, but with a 5D MkII and I don't need more. The 24-105 L is a wonderful piece of glass and the 50mm 1.8 is so cheap for the result it gives.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

​@@xcx8646 that's the joy of photography, lots of different types of photos and photographers.

[@FloridaTwoWheelAdventures]

Wow, this is crazy! If I did not know better, I would think you’ve somehow bugged my computers! For the past 3 days, I’ve been struggling over a new lens purchase for my R6m2 body and I narrowed it down to the RF24-105 f4 L, the RF 24-70 f2.8 L, and the RF 70-200 f4 L. These range from $1200 to $2500 in the US. I nearly emailed you to ask your opinion! Ultimately, I went with the 24-105 f4 lens and it’ll be here on Tuesday. I am upgrading my kit. I own the 5Dm2 still so I haven’t wanted to part with any old lenses and I nearly considered buying a new EF24-70 f4 but resisted. Even though adapting EF to RF is perfectly easy, I just can’t rationalize spending money on a new lens to adapt it. My range of lenses is pretty extensive for someone who shoots for fun. In the EF range, I have the nifty 50, a 17-40 f4 L, a 24-105 f4 L, but no longer telephoto. In RF, I have a 16mm 1.8 STM, a 35mm 1.8 STM, an 85mm f2 STM, a 24-105mm f4.5-7.1, a 600mm f11, and the 100-400mm f4-6.3 (not sure on the aperture but it’s a great inexpensive RF telephoto). I didn’t need the new 24-105mm RF L lens but I wanted to improve over the cheaper STM lens. I bought that one used so I got a good deal on it but it doesn’t impress me. I really struggled with deciding between the 2.8 and 4 versions. Money was a factor, indeed. It’s nearly 2.5x the cost to get the faster lenses when buying new. Used prices haven’t come down enough to justify their purchases, in my opinion. They’re usually only $300-500 off new prices. If I were smart, I’d sell my EF kit entirely and go full in with the RF bodies and lenses but I still love my 5Dm2. I can’t part with it. Not until it dies. Thanks for reaffirming my decision, Martin!

[@MartinCastein]

HAHHAA thats right i am watching! But really I would have told you to go for the 24-105

[@MrFoolzgold]

I was lucky enough to have been gifted the 16-35 2.8 mk 3 and 70-200 EF 2.8, and honestly fantastic as they are, I rarely use them because of the heft. I have been eying up the f4 versions and it might be time to visit MPB,, great channel by the way sir, you talk a lot of sense as always!

[@gohumberto]

I have the "Holy Trinity" of F4 Canon L IS lenses (16-35mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm) plus a couple of Primes (50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8). The 70-200mm F4 IS is the sharpest lens I've ever used. (The 24-105 not so much, but it's so useful). My favourite lens however, is the 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" on my 5D.

[@stevedixon8567]

same here with the Canon F4's! The 70-200 from f5.6 is super sharp

[@mikafoxx2717]

The 40 2.8 is the GOAT

[@gohumberto]

@@mikafoxx2717 Yes, the 40mm is a much better "standard" lens than a 50mm for what I do. and as sharp as I could want. It just gives me that extra bit of environment, or context, to an image, without being distorted.

[@mikafoxx2717]

@@gohumberto I agree. I've a sigma art 35 1.4 and I prefer the 40 2.8 because in practice it's just about as good and much lighter. The 50 1.8 has a.. filmic rendering, if you want it to have a 70's lens design. The RF 50 1.8 is probably fine though and closer to the 40 2.8, but I think the 40 is the most natural focal length. Still a very impressive lens. Slower but still sharp lenses are probably my favorite category. I've the 24-105 F4 too and it's very useful for its weight, it's the one that goes out on hikes for any variety of landscape shot.

[@MoD_Master_Of_Disaster_]

Same here, these three lenses can do all I ever want. Ans like you say, the 70-200 is the sharpest lens. BUT, no model wants their photos taken to be that razor sharp 😊 since it emphasizes even the slightest skin imperfections and blemishes. In general ‘m not using sharpness or clarity at all in CaptureOne for model shoots.

[@DavidMNewbold]

This has been my exact strategy with my kit. F4 zooms and fast primes. I have everything I could need in one bag that is not enormous or too heavy. The quality of my lenses is top notch and I don’t feel that I’ve had to sacrifice anything.

[@samuelsmith6804]

I just came back from a trip to Cornwall. I took with me two cameras D810 and D500, 3 lenses 180mm f2.8D, 20mm f1.8G and the 24-120 f4 VR zoom, tripod and flash. Really wasnt much kit for the amount of flexibility you get from it. I mostly just had the D810 and f4 zoom for landscapes and hikes which is what I did most of the time and left the rest at the airbnb. But when I had my bag I was able to shoot birds and wildlife, surfers, beach, sunsets, astrophotography, as well take pictures of my friends in daytime and at night. The full frame and crop sensor combination creates dual purposes for your lenses. You could always adapt your lenses to a small mirrorless like a Fuji XT series camera if you didn't want to take 2 DSLRs too. I highly rate the f4 zooms for being lightweight and very practical for so many things

[@brucetaylor607]

Awesome video. You are spot on correct about how expensive a 2.8 zoom lens can be. Most photographers I know love the 24-70mm f2.8 which is extremely versatile and cost a lot. My alternative was to get the Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G for my Nikon D3500 which is a pretty damn good lens. It's the best alternative to the 24-70mm. As for my prime lenses I have a Nikon 35mm f1.8, 40mm f2.8 macro and a 50mm f1.8 which can hold their own. So yes I do have the best of both worlds.

[@Twobarpsi]

Great advice about balancing your f4 lenses with fast primes. Makes a lot of sense. I have the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 and it really is heavy! When I use it for family portraits, I'm using it at f8 because even at f5.6 it doesn't have enough depth of field to keep two subjects in focus if they aren't on the same focal plane.

[@localnavy433]

Oh I love this video and everything that you said. I just love how you break down everything in real world usage not just what the spec sheets say this is why I keep coming back to learn from you brother

[@LyndonPatrickSmith]

I recently sold the EF 16-35 f4 IS. Loved that lens but I mainly shoot Sony now. My favourite for that is the 20-70 f4. I often refer to your adage from another film, “zooms for range and primes for looks.” Great advice.

[@thomasphillips5850]

Great video Martin, your portrait work is incredible. I use nikkor 16-35 f4, 24-120 f4, 70-300 f4.5,, and a 300 f4. Wouldn't change any of them.

[@thomasphillips5850]

I also use the 20 f1.8, 135 f2 which I love.

[@MegaSoundscapes]

Thankx for another great video and your thoughts on this matter. I am using the Canon EF F4 Zooms, 15-35, 24 105 ii and 70-200 IS, I bought them used and payed 1400 for all 3. Out of the 3, the 15-35 is the most used, then the 70-200 and then the 24-105. I love the sharpness of the 15-35 for landscape. I used the 70-200 for landscape and for studio portrait work, it's light and sharpt and just brilliant. The 24-105 is my "outdoor documenting life" zoom. I did'nt find it necessary so far to buy a 2.8 zoom, too expensive + too heavy to carry. The weight and size plays a big role on whether you take a lens with you or leave it at home. I did'nt feel the urge to buy RF Zooms so far because the EF zooms are just so cheap and for my taste they are sharp enough.

[@thomasa.243]

I absolutely love the Nikon Z 24-120 f4. Imagine if that lens would have been an f2.8. Way too large and too heavy. And on full frame, f4 is more than enough most of the time. In fact, with the Nikon Z 50f1.8, it is sometimes easy to have a too shallow depth of field.

[@jamesjackson4264]

If you like that lens and can give up 24 for 35 then looking into the tamron 35-150 on the used market. Cheers.

[@thomasa.243]

@@jamesjackson4264 thanks for the hint. Although I think that it will be too close to the 24-120 and I would either abandon that or the Tamron. The third party lens selection is the only thing I am jealous of Sony users. Nikon has a pretty good range of lenses at a good value for money but they do not always offer what I want…

[@pauldarville3843]

Great advice, Thanks Martin!!

[@alexstormhall9326]

I'm heartened to see other disciples of the f/4 zooms here. I was shocked by how similar Martin's advice would be to my own when it comes to kit acquisition in this aspect. Personally I've been rocking the Canon f/4 "holy trinity" myself, using the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 IS. To be honest though, I never used mid-range zooms much, as my 24-105 (acquired for free but in very old and heavily used condition) failed not long after I acquired it. Instead I have the 50 1.2 L which does the job much better for my purpose, as I typically shoot very often in low available light conditions. Three (technically two) f/4 zooms and a trinity of primes (35, 50, 85 personally) just about cover most every purpose I need when shooting.

[@itaylorm]

Thank you, I had been pondering getting a 70-200 f2.8 to replace my f4. Your right about weight and IS. My personal Kit is a 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f4, 500 f4-7.1. Covers everything that I need

[@MrJohnHimself]

Great video, I have a Canon 70-200 f4 IS MK1 and use it for virtually everything. Horses are my main subject so 2.8 can be too narrow but this is sharp, light, and makes much more sense when you’re usually stopped down anyway. The only thing I’m concerned about is an upcoming wedding but I don’t plan on doing many so hiring lenses is always an option

[@MeAMuse]

Photography is all about compromises. It really comes down to what you shoot and what you value. Realistically an F4 zoom will cover 90% of what I want to shoot with that focal range. F2.8 gets me to 95 or 97%. For me zooms are all about flexibility. I used to use a 24-105 F4 a bunch, then moved into a 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 because I wanted more flexibility on zoom range without changing lenses. These days I mainly shoot with a 24-70 F2.8 for a standard zoom - and again it's about flexibility... because I want to take 'good enough' candid portraits without having to change lens. Summation: I am lazy and I can choose whether I want to optimize for flexibility on either focal length or aperture. I do have F2.8 for UWA - but only because I sometimes do a little astro.

[@johnjon1823]

Good video as usual !

[@thecaveofthedead]

By coincidence, I bought my first zoom lens, and my first Nikon lens in well over a decade: the 24-120 f4. What gave me a yen for it was deciding to shoot some film after a nearly 5 year gap, and thinking how great the image stabilisation would be on my Nikon F100 with 100 or 50 ISO film. So while waiting for it, I looked at some of the test data - always a mistake - and was half convinced the lens would look soft. Not in the least. Even blown up to 100% the files from my D600 look sharp - more so for the stabilisation. I recently had it on holiday and it was so useful. But, like you said, it's not what I want for portraits so I also took a small, lightweight AI-conversion 105 f2.5. This 50 year old lens is really surprisingly sharp and contrasty wide open, and very easy to focus - especially making use of the focus confirmation dot in the D600 and F100. Also, like you say, I've had an 80-200 f2.8D for nearly 20 years but I've underused it due to it's size and weight. It's fine because it was a bargain in around 2006 or so. But on this holiday I actually opted to take the variable aperture 70-300 and got great, sharp pictures with it - again because of the image stabilisation. You need to be more careful with your backgrounds with a less expensive lens like this. But the results were still completely satisfying.

[@dzambolea]

Always great advices! I love your channel and I love your photos! Keep it up!

[@Daniel_Borisov]

Great pro tips, thanks Martin!

[@geraldinebryce594]

Love this information, you make real valid points thank you .

[@hywel3143]

Hi, Martin. Hope you are having a good Summer. I've been on a couple of trips over the Summer, and wanted to travel light with my 6D. For the first trip to Llanberis with the car I took the 24-105 f/4 IS, an old and tiny 28mm f/2.8 non IS and the 50mm 1.8 STM. For the second trip weight and bulk was more of an issue, so I took an old 28mm f2.8 (non IS), a 50mm 1.8 STM, and an old 28-105 f/3.4-4.5 USM II, leaving my 24-105 and 70-200 L zooms at home. I loved the ergonomics of the old ultra lightweight 28-105 as an all day carry, and the images were much better quality than I had expected. When I got home I processed the images through DXO PureRaw 4, which corrected the optical issues with the old lenses and I was pleased with the images. I've just purchased a 17-40 f/4 L, and I'm really pleased with it. The 16-35 IS lenses were too expensive for me to justify even used. Again, DXO can correct the minor optical issues well if they are ever an issue. I think the 17-40 is underrated, especially in the nice way it renders images...

[@buchsg]

i'm very pleased with the 17-40 L too, for it's price point nowaday it's a bargain...

[@michaelreaves6212]

Love this! I shoot indoor sports, and when shooting a play, often i need to stop down to f/4 anyway to get what i want in focus, so I've been looking at picking up some f/4 zooms. When shooting individual player portraits, i mostly use a 135mm f/2, a bit harder to work with when things are moving at higher speeds and far from as many keepers, but I always come home with something good. That being said, I could really use a 300mm 2.8 w/ a teleconverter... 🙂

[@onemanband3579]

My favourite kit for shooting is FN SLR 7.62, 20 rd mag. Handheld. Good to see you back Martin. CFC!

[@CanoeToNewOrleans]

I used to shoot with the 24 - 105 f/4 and liked the versatiity of the lens. The bokeh is passably good, but if I wanted more background blur I'd switch to my 50 mm f/1.8. Those two lenses were a good combination.

[@jayse1195]

Just come back from a weeks shoot in Eastern Tibet, since I've had the 24-105 f4 it's lived on my camera. It covers 95% of my shots now. I also took the 70-200 f4 IS, which was used very sporadically, and a 50 1.4 that was carried around but never used. Great video, many thanks!

[@MartinCastein]

wow that must have been some experience that!

[@The_Algorithm_]

I have the 16-35 F4 and the 24-105 F4 Mark II, and they're both fantastic lenses. The 24-105 is severely underrated and has captured some of my very favorite images that I've taken. I also have some of the latest EF versions of the 2.8 zooms, and a couple 1.4 and 1.2 primes that are fantastic, but if I'm taking just one lens for a hike or somewhere like a Tulip or Sunflower Festival (popular things here in the pacific northwest of the US) then I can do it all with either of my F4 lenses.

[@alangardner8596]

24/105 F4 and 70/200 F4 for general use and primes for working with a model. Works fine.

[@robigerovasilisphotography]

Great information and so true. The F4 lenses I’ve used have been little gems. Classic example here is I bought the RF 15-35mm f2.8 I tried to love this lens but never ever needed it or used it at f2.8 always ended up at f5.6 and above. I also noticed it was never totally sharp…I may have just had a bad lens. But I eventually sold it and bought the 14-35 f4 and O.M.G this is my new baby. I love this lens. So yes totally agree with your f4 push in lenses. We shouldn’t look past them they have a place in all Pro photography.

[@normstangl3499]

When I purchased my lenses and based on what I shoot, mostly landscapes and portraits, I chose the 24-70 F4 and the 70-200 F4 and portraits were covered by the vanilla 85mm F1.8 and the 70-200 with a long focal length selection. The goal was to get sharp lightweight lenses with a degree of compactness and at an affordable price point. They work for me. I never felt compromised shooting wide open at F4 either. Regarding the 85mm lens I generally shot at F2.8.

[@johnherzel718]

My favorite Full frame lens kit is from Canon in EF mount, the 17-40 f4.0 and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS L. I usually add a 50mm f 1.8 and I'm good to go. If I know I'm going out after dark I'll switch out to my 20mm f2.8 along with my 35 f2 IS and my 200f2.8, instead of my zooms. These 3 primes cover just about anything, and sometimes I switch to the 85 f1.4 instead of the 200. I really should sell my 24-70 f2.8. F4.0 zooms make it much easier to carry around. The 70-300 L lens replaced my 70-200 f4 because it was soo good and rather compact with some added reach. Not exactly matching the f4 zooms replacement concept, but a rather good kit with similar results. The IS on the 70-300 is very good and the AF is really impressive. Now for the expensive part, upgrading to the RF versions....

[@gary0078]

the EF 16 35f4 IS is one of canon's best lenses, mine never comes off the 6d & 5dsr , ive done A2 prints & it looks so sharp & clear

[@renees8262]

Canon 6d with a 16-35 f4 is

[@chrissmith7069]

Hi Martin. 16-35 f4. 24-105 f4 50mm f1.8. Some non canon glass. Samyang 85mm f1.4 (manual lense) and a 1982 Helios 44M. Just missing the 70-200 f4 but maybe 1 day that will turn up! 😂 These lenses get used on my 5D classic, 6D mk1 and 7D mk1. Keep up the great work 👍 👏 Cheers Chris.

[@deanrobertnoble138]

Still use that pairing on my R8. Love the Ef 24-105mm rather than re-buy that range with the RF version. I bought the RF50mm as it is very reasonable. I used both at a wedding this weekend and they were pefect for me.

[@cantellicristiano]

Good morning Mr. Martin, I follow you from Italy and I have to thank you for the countless advice I received from you, thank you. I own the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 (first model) and the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 (first model). I am satisfied, because with my Canon R6, I managed to photograph an outdoor concert at night. Surely a 2.8 lens would have helped me, but I am still satisfied with the results obtained. Thank you and compliments.

[@Pressure_23]

Great advice again. I use a 24-105 f4 for most shots, it’s fairly light and f4 gives some blur if you use it right. Then I have a Voigtlander manual 40mm f1.2 which has bags of character and gorgeous bokeh. V lightweight versatile kit though I’m tempted by a wide zoom…

[@brianeibisch6025]

Very sensible commentary in this video. F4 is normally more than enough aperture. Camera companies want you to buy F2 and F 2.8 lenses because they make more money out of them … that’s it. Years ago I decided that F4 was enough to lug around but also bought a couple of F1.8 primes. These F1.4s and F1.2 now available are crazy expensive and who really wants a photo with no DOF and largely blurry?? Not that many. Cheers

[@louiswhite4909]

My main Canon is an EOS R, my back up or second camera is a 5DMKIV. For work I photograph a lot of corporate events, parties, fundraisers, 90% of the time they take place indoors and in the evenings. I also shoot various types of headshots and portraits in studio and on location indoors and outdoors. Some nightclub live music, as well outdoor music festivals in the summer. Oh and also some photojournalism. My current lenses are all EF. 24-105 F4 II L, 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L (borrowed) EF 16-35mm F2.8 II L, 50mm 1.8, 35mm f2, and a 85mm F1.8. I get it done with these mostly. However, I work in some posh lit very dim locations. I struggle with 24-105 f4 and for sure the variable aperture zoom. The last few days I have been considering the EF 135mm F2 or EF 200mm F2.8 L. The fly in the ointment is that I have also the chance to purchase a 70-200 f4 lens. All three lenses are priced within $40 USD of each other. I am worried the F4 70-200 will be too slow. The reach and versatility is great.

[@The_Hero_Is_Back]

Very timely video. Recently got an aps-c Tokina 12-24 f/4 for my Nikon. I like architecture and landscape. I mostly shoot f/5.6-11 so like you say, don’t need an f/2.8. The cheaper, lighter f/4 option makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing.

[@DaveMuller]

Macro usually comes in seriously low f number, but I've never used anything under F8 for macro because of paper thin DoF, so I've never fully understood why they usually F2 or lower. The other issue with F4 is when using a doubler on body models that won't A/F on F8, but that's pretty niche. The EF 70-300 F4-5.6 is fine. The only problems are in rainforests where it's so dim even IS can struggle to keep up. End up pushing insane ISO to keep 1/320s.

[@RiccardoPareschi]

Great video, I totally agreed. The F4 lenses are enough for a lot of photo scenarios. My favourite lens is an EF 24/70 F4 L bought in bundle with a Canon 6Dmk2, an awesome all-around lens. Thanks Martin.

[@seandiggy1976]

Great video! F4 zooms for landscape and studio. Shooting at f5.6-11 anyway. Primes (EF35 1.4, RF 50 1.2, RF 85 1.2, RF 135 1.8) for family photos and portraits. I don’t see/have the need for 2.8 zooms.

[@lifetimesofamultiplemediam1003]

I have three F4 zooms, (Phantom lenses as I call them) 16-35L, 24-70L, and 24-105L. I use the 16-35L for vlogging, as well as shooting an event with DJ's on turntables. Works a treat. 24-70L for studio portraits, general portraits and Red Carpet stuff because the image quality is so excellent… and I use the 24-105L for events where the extra reach might be needed, or shooting environments where I don't know what to expect. I also have a hefty 70-200 at 2.8, but the strange thing is, I rarely shoot it wider than f4. I should really just get an F4, but I can't be bothered.

[@joaopsemedo]

Yes 100% ! My zoom lenses are, canon 16-35 L f4, 24-104 L f4 Mark I, 70-200 L f4 Mark II. Primes are, Tamron 35mm SP 1.4, Sigma Art 50mm 1.4, and Canon 100mm L Macro 2.8.

[@buchsg]

i'm like you, i'm using f4 zoom for most of my photography, 17-40 L, 24-105 is L and 70-200 is L... i also use a 50mm f1.4 if i need shallow depth of field for portraits when shooting with natural light only but most of the time i use a f4 zoom lens. build this kit with a 5d classic for less than the price of a new 70-200 f2.8 lens

[@superbug1977]

II have been using an older 70-200 beige body f4 L-series lens (non-image stabilized) with my Canon R6 mirrorless. The camera body is image stabilized and the combination processes good portraiture in the 100mm range. I'm pleased with it.

[@justesmond]

I’m a wedding and portrait shooter. I use an RF 70-200 f/4 for my long ceremony lens. It saves on weight, saves money and in mostly outdoor ceremonies and portrait session I don’t need f/2.8 at all in a 70-200. I still get bokeh and compression from that focal length. Don’t be afraid to get an f/4 lens, especially at the long end. If I need it I have an f/2 zoom and f/1.4 prime to fill in the gap of normal focal lengths.

[@MarkRameyMRFilm]

I use 2 - f/4 EF lenses. The 17-40L and the 24-70L. I love the IS and Macro capabilities on the 24-70. Being able to grab a macro shot on the fly without having to swap lenses has been invaluable. I typically do more video but have been doing more stills work over the last few years. I do use a speed booster from time to time on my crop sensor camera for the extra stop equivalent and full frame field of view. At the studio, I also use Sony f/4 zooms on our 2 cameras. One is the larger 18-110mm Cinema Zoom, and they serve us very well. I also adapt my EF lenses to the Sony cameras occasionally. The 17-40 will focus closer than the Sony lens, which is helpful in covering the kind of "how to" projects that we shoot.

[@kevinl1492]

You have covered the 17-40mm before. Its best quality is being able to zoom to 40mm. So, it is a standard lens when you want it to be and a wide angle when that is needed. Good for shooting events where corner quality is not a big deal (you are not shooting fine art images when you shoot 500+ frames in one evening). But I sometimes use a 24mm f/2.8 IS instead because it is smaller and lighter. I typically have a second body with a longer prime or standard zoom. The 17-40 is faster moving between focal lengths, but 2 bodies with 2 lenses are still workable, especially if you can anticipate what will happen next.

[@malikdhadhalinux]

I love my 24-120 F4 Nikon. I mostly use the 24-70 2.8 only when I need that 2.8 fast aperture... :) Fantastic video.

[@donsoley746]

The master at work.

[@MartinCastein]

Hahaha thanks Don

[@edc5338]

The majority of my shooting is in the 24-120 range. I have a few lenses in that range but usually use the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I had a 70-200 but sold it as I rarely needed it. I have a Sigma Art 24-105 f4 lens, but it is a heavy beast to carry around.

[@georgemahlum6542]

Good review...I use a Sony FE 70-200/4...love it!

[@hangfire6368]

The 16-35mm f/4 L IS seems to be a lens that most people transitioning to RF lenses tend to keep. The EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, and the EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM are also lenses that they hold on to.

[@s5blitzer]

Amazing quality and practicality of Martin's discussion of this topic. Very succinct and easy to digest. I have a potential upcoming purchase of an expensive 24-70mm f2/8 S to complete my Nikon trinity (already own the 14-24mm f/2.8 S & 70-200mm f/2.8 S). However, I already own the f/4 version of the 24-70mm and your comments are making rethink my purchase. Maybe I might get the 85mm f/1.8 to complement my 105mm f/2.8 Macro instead. Thanks for your insight.

[@blubravery]

24-120 f4 is my workhorse lens. Like said in studio in rarely wide open, and on the streets I'm rarely blowing out background. If I need to I'll just pop a prime on.

[@matthewworrell8784]

I think the 24-70 f4 IS is definitely worthy of a mention also.

[@w.jonesveraza]

17-40 f4, 70-200 f4. Had them for years and still love them. On occasion, my 50mm f1.8.🙂

[@johnherzel718]

I love this combo, I used these same lenses up until I found a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS L series lens. I sold my 70-200 f4 IS recently because I like the extra reach. The EF nifty 50 still impresses me, even now! The 17-40 is by far my favorite lens.

[@stevedixon8567]

I do mostly railway photography, so I need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the front of a fast moving train, and enough DOF to let you see the surroundings - so shooting at f2.8 isn't something I need - the Canon f4s stopped down a little bit are plenty in terms of DOF and superb in terms of image quality (especially the 70-200), and the fact they have IS and are super cheap used - especially now when a lot of people seem to be selling them cheap to move into RF lenses - we live in good times to buy, and I've got the EF L 16-35 f4, the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4. The 70-200 gets the most use for railway photgraphy for me, and it reaches peak IQ around f5.6, which is perfect for the depths of field i'm looking to get. With the lightning fast and accurate focusing of a modern mirrorless camera, and the way you can push ISOs on modern sensors and still get great results, f2.8's aren't for me personally. In total, I got those 3 lenses used for less than about £1100, and can't imagine better value

[@reneclarijs4554]

I have the 16-35mm f4 L lens and the 70-200 f4 L lens, also the 50mm 1.8. That in combo with the FF canon 6d, and the apsc canon r10. For me it works great. Ps, i also have the ef-s lens 17-135 mm f 3.5 - 5.6

[@mikkirurk1]

A note for canon EF shooters - Tamron 45mm SP 1.8. Great lens for a very little money.

[@boredboiseboy]

The autofocus on that one is kind of slow, but a really nice lens. the 35mm f1.4 is outstanding.

[@eydentube]

I got canon 50mm/ 1.8 f prime canon 70-200mm is f4 canon 17-40mm f4 and old 6d mark1 I don't think i need anything else for now 😊

[@johnhargreaves9714]

When we were shooting sports on 400asa slide film, f2.8 was a life saver because it unlocked 1/500s in overcast light, which literally made the difference between a sharp and a fuzzy shot. Now that we have digital and we can whack up the iso to 800+ with no real loss of IQ then the f4 versions make so much more sense. You get better shots because that small increase in depth of field will create a better picture in many cases. The micro DoF you get from f1.4 or 1.2 is cute and all but only useful in a limited number of cases overall.

[@skummemoghund]

current setup is a50mm 1.8, a 16-35 and a 70-200. Had a 24-105 and never really used it, so sold it and bought a 100mm macro instead. i am contemplating getting a 24-70 to fit in the lineup or instead of the 16-35. But i am pretty happy with what i got.

[@CircuitBurger]

Greetings pal, excellent video, and a fabulous topic indeed. All concerns so eloquently covered and well explained as usual. Definitely good enough. I've never had an issue, and always found the compromise of size vs price and performance absolutely non-critical on a day to day basis. The Canon 24-105 f/4 I used on holiday trips and even for weddings, was always fantastic to handle, and the output absolutely tip top. My current 24-70mm f/4 on my Nikon Z6 hardly ever comes off the body, due to its versatility, quality and because its also excels for video usage aswell. If anyone reads this, seriously consider an f/4 lens before you click on that buy button. Take care buddy, see on the next one👍

[@MartinCastein]

thanks mate I hope you are doing well! yeah the mid range f4 lenses in particular are great because you either get more reach or much smaller and lighter, they really make a compelling option on full frame i think a lot of people overlook as the shallow depth of field is the thing you can make use of on full frame so they want to maximize that all the time but probably end up at at f8 for a bunch of stuff anyway

[@rd_rae]

Just think of all the pro tele lenses that are mostly F4 or slower. Totally agree with you re 16-35 and 70-200 F4 and get a fast 50 or 85 prime.

[@eyedunno7078]

I have the Minolta 'Beer Can' 70-210 and 35-70 'Baby Beer Can' f4 zooms for my Minolta Maxxum film bodies, and they are great budget zooms that also work for Sony DSLR bodies. No lens stabilization but for the price, they're hard to beat.

[@artsilva]

I dont have any zooms for my 5D II but for my Nikon DSLRs I run with the 24-120 f4 which covers a large majority of my needs. I will also pack along my 20mm f1.8G for those must have wide shots

[@FOTO_EXPERT]

When photographing people in motion, and especially children in cloudy weather with old SLR cameras, aperture 2.8 often helps out))!

[@thedarkslide]

I went with that strategy exactly on Canon EF. 16-35 f4, the 24-70 f4 and Sigma’s 100-400. All have image stabilization.

[@jasonbodden8816]

Nothing wrong with fast lenses but one of my favorite lenses is actually a variable aperture Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0 - 5.6. I do own and use a few fast Primes but I am very rarely at f/1.8. I live anywhere between f/3.2 and f/4 outdoors for the most part. People underestimated just how much of a blurry background you can achieve at f/4. It's more about focal length and distances than anything. Manny Ortiz spewed the nonsense that the f/4 version of the 70-200 lens isn't pro because it doesn't open up to f/2.8. Just goes to show that you need to use your own brain to sift through the nonsense to find the actual sense in tutorials. The trouble with that is that if you're a beginner, you tend to blindly believe everything the photographers whose work you love tell you.

[@karlbrodowsky7744]

I loved to use a polarizing filter and a zoom f4.5..5.6 in the pre digital days with ISO 200. I was constantly struggling with aperture (almost always max open) and the exposure time ( always at the limit for shooting without tripod), but when travelling I would not want to carry a tripod nor a f2.8 zoom or multiple lenses. This has become way more relaxed, since with current digital gear we do have some shake compensation and ISO can be increased without too much pain way above 200. That said, I have just ordered a used zoom 80..200/f2.8 yesterday, it was not expensive, though...

[@karlbrodowsky7744]

Btw. until now all my zooms are somewhere in the range of f3.5..f4.5 and even worse. My favorite zoom is 28-300/f4.5..f5.6. The 24-105 is hard to get for Pentax. And the super wide angle zoom is 19.35. Anyway I am covered with the ones I have plus prime lenses for 28/2, 50/1.4, 85/14, 135/2.5 and 300/5.6.

[@Flavio.Bucciarelli]

Yes, for me too f4 is more than enough. I'm a Fujifilm user and I have the 16-80mm f4 which is often criticized badly by many photographers.

[@sharpskilz]

I have all the f4 zooms and and a few primes, this makes total sense. it min-maxing.

[@jaspercaelan4998]

For me the new superzooms are my go to for landscapes and travel. They're not as good as the F4 zooms but for me they are good enough. I'm willing to compromise a bit on image quality for the weight and not having to worry about lens swaps in bad weather.

[@ruff1draft]

I use my Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4 in F4 alot

[@HansKeesom]

I made money making thousands of photo’s of marathon runners. 2.8 70-200 made a huge difference there, even although it was heavier then the f4 and therefore sometimes harder to move from one runner to the next. Always brought both lenses and depending on the light situation chooose.

[@PJ-om2wq]

Most of my photos are shot with a Nikon 24-120f4 VR. It's a fantastic lens.

[@luzr6613]

I have the fast glass across the full zoom range - my considered decision. I think that what you say in this video makes perfect sense for most people engaged in photography - and that is not to slyly disparage anyone in any way. Fast glass is heavy - i'd probably drop five or six kilos from my landscape carry if i went to f/4 - but there are benefits to putting some weight on the back... i don't need a gym membership, for starters. Additionally, I shoot a lot in low light, and i do appreciate the extra light gathering. I also use the creative flexibility that the extra stop or two gives and that IBIS can't replace - that and the fact that outside of a studio i'm less likely to have control of the light and of the content of the background, and simply standing somewhere else to address these variables, even with zooms, is not always possible. In the end i think the choice comes down to the images one wishes to produce and the environment one is working with to get those images - so nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse'. I can easily imagine an alternative trajectory in my photography where my ideal glass would be good quality compact lenses and usually shooting in the sweet spot... just didn't work out that way (sob). Cheers.

[@MartinCastein]

Yes i think there are good arguements for both ways of seeing this, I think people dont talk about the f4 benefits enough though so wanted to make a video about it. I do think the 2.8 lenses are better for certain people at certain times too though,.

[@luzr6613]

@@MartinCastein Just one other angle - I suspect also that we shoot to both the limitations and possibilities of the gear we have. I use vintage glass often, and the fact of performance limitations doesn't bother me at all - we select the images we take accordingly and the experience of photography and the results are no worse for being limited by a 5.6 lens. Often, I think, the feeling of satisfaction is greater because the 'craft' is more demanding. Cheers.

[@TheStorytellingDad]

F/4 is just fine for 99% of photography and video. Kasey from Camera Conspiracies made a videos a long time ago “ Nobody cares about your blurry background.” Get watch. What camera and lens did you record this on? Looks amazing!

[@MartinCastein]

Haha yes I have seen that video and largely that’s true. To a point at least. I filmed it on the EF 50mm 1.2 and the canon r3.

[@TheStorytellingDad]

@@MartinCastein but to your videos actual question; yes you can get almost the same results, albeit with less background blur than higher aperture lenses with just f/4 glass. I got some of my best shots from the 17-40 f/4, and it’s also one of your favorites as well.

[@MartinCastein]

@@TheStorytellingDad yes that lens is really fantastic and overlooked, i only switched to the 16-35 f4 is for some video stability otherwise i wouldnt have bothered.

[@droe90]

I needed a wide angle zoom to shoot an event and was afraid of going with the f4 until I thought about most of the shots I'd be taking would be group shots where I'd need the extra depth of field and that I'd be bouncing a speedlight so light gathering would be an issue. I'm thinking about getting the 70-200 f4 for studio sessions next, but I like to shoot fashion shows every few months, and they usually don't allow speed lights. ~ As of now, I'm using an 85mm 1.8 but I'd like the extra reach.

[@droe90]

I have an old ($70) push pull zoom canon 70-210 f4 that I actually love but the focus system is way to loud to seriously use in public

[@Dngrov257]

Yup, I have this expensive door stop known as the Canon EF 70MM-200MM F 2.8 L V2. While the lens produces great images, it is so heavy and bulky, I rarely take anywhere. I should sell it and buy the EF or RF f4 version. I just bought the Nikon version of the 70MM-200MM f 4 for my D700. I have used it more over the past weeks than I used the EF 2.8 in a year. I have always loved the Canon EF or RF 24MM-105MM f4. The lens is so versatile and the optical quality is good. I have never understood the “need” for f2.8 on wide angle zooms. Who shoots a landscape or building at f2.8? I rarely shoot my wide angle zoom at less than f8, which I find is the optical sweet spot for the wide angle zooms I have owned. Same wide primes, who really needs f1.4 on a 24MM or 28MM? The 2.8 versions of these lens are more than good enough. Fast glass is useful for 50MM-135MM, but even then f1.8 is good enough for the 50MM and 85MM. I own the the EF 50MM because I like it’s rendering even at slower apertures. I rarely shoot it f1.2. What good is a photo of a woman where the eyes are in focus, but the nose and her earrings are out of focus? Maybe for some sort of artistic look on occasion, but most of the time, I would want the subject’s entire head I focus even if it means a somewhat less blurry background.

[@andrewharrington7435]

They don't tell you it but the full frame equivalent to your eyes is f/6 at the widest. At that aperture (when it is dark or you look at someone really attractive) the resolution drops a lot. I guess mainly around the edges and corners. I think the really wide apertures replicate this, but not in the right way.

[@gfxmaniac]

I use 2.8 or faster because my subject is moving and In darker conditions.

[@oscarlopez2052]

Hi Martin, a few weeks ago I asked you for a recommendation for a camera, in the end I bought the Nikon D810 for $350, thanks for your help. I'm going to have an event for a girl's 15th birthday but I don't want to use a flash. Could you give me some advice on the camera settings and how to do it? Keep going with your channel, I think it's very educational, one of the best on KZbin. Thanks for the help you share.

[@elram2649]

Tamron 70-210mm F/4: beautifully accurate lens on my Nikon D750. Sublime. Superb. And cheaply priced.

[@ryansublermedia]

Give me the 2.8s! I know it can be a smidge soft at 2.8 with my version 1 of the 70-200 and 24-70, but I shoot so much low light, and I also think it’s VERY necessary for concert photos. Shooting a concert at f4 could be abysmal depending on the venue.

[@MartinCastein]

Oh in your case 2.8 is better I’m talking very much about landscape and travel

[@grahamking2682]

Couldn't agree more...is it a case of want the best gear or lack of understanding why the lens is used do you think? I remember trying portraits with an 85mm f1.2, the sheer size and weight was ridiculous, now back in the land of f1.8 version and happier ...I like f4 zoomz, lighter, great IQ and sharp like all lenses these days are. Can't wait to sell a kidney for my next one...600mm f4 for my wildlife needs.

[@ebinrock]

However, if you're doing video work, and you have to work in low light situations where you're not allowed to bring in extra lights, you need a fast lens. You don't want to pump up your ISO too high (unless you have a camera with dual native ISO, then there shouldn't be as much noise), and you certainly can't slow down your shutter speed for longer exposures without some wonky motion blur artifacts in your video (the 180 degree shutter angle rule).

[@fares_of_arabia]

I have been rocking the 16-35 2.8 II, and the 70-200 f4 IS II, for nearly 10 years now, I don't need any other lenses, currently using them on Olympus EM1X, excellent stabalised setup for manual focus video, and autofocus photography.

[@mikkirurk1]

Canon 70-300 L - even smaller package.

[@marekward6202]

I use 24-105 on a 6D in a small hip bag and I have a 100-400 I carry in it's own bag over shoulder or in back of car atm. . I have the 70-200 2.8 but it doesn't travel. It's a lump. Not much extra distance than the 24-105. . I have taken some lovely portraits with the 70-200 2.8 but I mostly don't bother with the extra bokeh it can give me. I prefer environmental portraits. . We got such a huge usable ISO range on camera, and Lightroom's new clean up picture AI thingy. Are fast lens as needed as they were? It's horses for courses.

[@waynethorn7218]

Good topc! Zoom lenses today are nearly as good as primes

[@scottlester8128]

I moved to canon starting with a 6D as a second, loved the vids on it. Since got the R6ii as I mainly photograph dogs in good light, events using flash. I have the 24-105f4, 50mm f1.8 and Helios 56mm F2. I’ve got a potential wedding, could I get away with the 70-200 f4 or should I get the f2.8? Thanks

[@MartinCastein]

its hard to say because it depends on the venue and light etc, i do think for weddings the 2.8 are a good idea and for travel and landscape stuff the f4 is better option due to weight and portability, but ive shot quite a few weddings on the f4 and been fine but thats been in summer with enough light. I think if your camera is the r6ii you should be fine with the f4. But you have to decide yourself as i dont know what conditions you face.

[@bencompson]

I've got Nikon's Z 14-30 f/4 and 24-70 f/4. The main reason is size. I just got tired of carrying a 24-70 f/2.8 while traveling and hiking. I miss the f/2.8 aperture in low light situations from time to time but I carry the f/4 lenses more often. However, when it comes to a 70-200 there are other considerations. First, Nikon does not make a 70-200 f/4. Second, even though that Canon 70-200 f/4 is smaller than an f/2.8 it still isn't small per se. Third, a 70-200 f/2.8 like the Nikon Z version can be used with their 1.4 Z teleconverter with little loss of image quality and still be reasonably fast. So that is a consideration when it comes to which 70-200 to get.

[@peterjohnson1739]

Nikon DOES make a 70-200mm f/4 G lens. I use it in my D750; it’s a brilliant lens. It’ll fit all Z-mount Nikon mirrorless bodies using the FTZ adapter.

[@bencompson]

@@peterjohnson1739 Correct. Nikon does not make a Z 70-200 f/4. When I got my Z7 I ordered the FTZ, mounted a few lenses and immediately sent it back. The first reason was that it did not work with several of my older, but high end, Sigma lenses. The second reason, is that it makes all of the size concessions a bit pointless. Yes, you can say the FTZ it isn't _that_ bad in terms of size and you'd be correct. But , not long ago I was one of those guys who traveled with a D750 with an L-bracket on it and in number of big fat f/2.8 lenses and I claimed the size and weight didn't bother me. But, the more I've traveled the more it does. To the point that the camera was getting left behind and the cell phone was my camera. And, as mentioned, the Nikon Z 1.4 TC has been a bit of a game changer where teleconverters are concerned. And that's not available for F mount lenses.