October 25, 2014, 10:58:38 AM

Author Topic: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS  (Read 6028 times)

ashmadux

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
  • Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
    • View Profile
    • Edward Ofori Photography
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2013, 05:15:08 PM »
the 2.8 version is my favorite lens that i have ever used.

The TRUTH right there
Be the best you, screw everything else.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2013, 05:15:08 PM »

ksagomonyants

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2013, 06:13:51 PM »
I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait.  I find this way for flexible for my purposes.

+1. You can also get 100 f2.8L Macro instead of 135 f2 if you need image stabilization.

Another option for you can be Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens. I don't own it but the reviews are pretty good. And it includes 6(!) years of manufacturer's warranty and it's $769 on B&H.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 06:16:55 PM by ksagomonyants »

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2013, 07:49:49 PM »
I used the 4 for a couple of years and it's a great lens. Loved it.

But - there came a point where I needed that extra stop and it was time to step up. Too many events I was shooting called for a telephoto lens indoors. Struggled with ISO at f4 (on 1.6x)...traded up to the 2.8 and don't regret it one bit. In fact, that is one of my most frequently used lenses especially now with an FF camera. Yes, the extra weight can be burdensome (even somewhat painful at times) but when I look at the pics afterward, I know that it was totally worth it!
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 07:52:24 PM by Act444 »

JPAZ

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
  • If only I knew what I was doing.....
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2013, 09:52:57 PM »
One last thought.  Got home tonite and unboxed my new lens.  Just playing with this indoors in existing light, I am "wowed" by the clarity.  The IS is virtually silent.  At 2.8, hand-held at 200mm with long exposures, I am impressed.  And the narrow DOF!  I still plan to hold on to the f/4 for a while.

OK, I am done now.  But, I am really glad I went for it.  Oh, and the "pinch" lenscap ain't so bad either.
5d Mkiii; Eos-M; too many lenses; 430 EXii and a whole lot of stuff

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1521
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2013, 06:31:58 AM »
It is not only about the length, or the Aperture or the sharpness or any other static spec.... rather the fact that shots taken with the 70-200 F2.8 mk.II, are just drop dead gorgeous.... instantly your shots are just better. hard to explain...

I am a hobbyist myself... and not a rich man, but after knowing what I know about the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, I'd be ok paying $4000 for this lens if I had to do it over again... (can't say that about my 24-70 f.2.8 mk.ii)...

The bokeh is great, the contrast is great, the colors palpable, the shots breathtaking...

How will you put a price one that?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:37:51 AM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2013, 06:39:32 AM »
how much cash you got?   if you can afford it then sure why not....

Zen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2013, 04:27:32 PM »
I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2013, 04:27:32 PM »

StudentOfLight

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2013, 05:08:57 AM »
One last thought.  Got home tonite and unboxed my new lens.  Just playing with this indoors in existing light, I am "wowed" by the clarity.  The IS is virtually silent.  At 2.8, hand-held at 200mm with long exposures, I am impressed.  And the narrow DOF!  I still plan to hold on to the f/4 for a while.

OK, I am done now.  But, I am really glad I went for it.  Oh, and the "pinch" lenscap ain't so bad either.

Congrats.

P.S. centre-pinch FTW!  :D
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

StudentOfLight

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2013, 06:24:55 AM »
I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait.  I find this way for flexible for my purposes.
Another option for you can be Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens. I don't own it but the reviews are pretty good. And it includes 6(!) years of manufacturer's warranty and it's $769 on B&H.

I know th OP has already made his purchase so this is just for others' interest... The Tamron is a very capable lens which offers similar IQ to the Canon 70-200mm IS II on the wide end but at "200mm" it is not that sharp when shooting at f/2.8. I've found that the focal range is somewhat overstated, and the Tamron is more like 70-190mm. There are also other shortcomings like no AF-range-limit switches and VC is simply on or off. Although there are no IS-variations like on the Canon system, I don't find it such a problem. Tamron's VC system seems to work fine for my needs.

Anyway, if you are on a budget then I have no hesitation in recommending the Tamron, as it is good value for money and is backed by a solid warranty, but don't believe sites like DXOmark that say it is superior to the Canon 2.8 IS-II it simply isn't.
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2013, 06:36:29 AM »
but don't believe sites like DXOmark
Does anyone?   ;D
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2013, 10:59:04 AM »
I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D

Never heard of that.  Even if true, the price must be outrageous. 
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 17-40L, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 85 1.8, 135L, Sigma 35 1.4, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2013, 11:34:25 AM »
I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

I think you are approaching this issue in the wrong order. The right question is, what is it that this lens is not great at? Unless there are any major issues that need a fix, an update is extremely unlikely. The 70-200 f/4L IS is an extremely popular lens which sells very well.
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

Zen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2013, 05:39:32 PM »
Thanks Sunny and JR for your replies.

I have no complaints about the 2.8. When I got it, I didn't think I would need the 4, so sold it. But now, because of the weight of the 2.8, I wish I had not sold the smaller one. So I was trying to decide if I should replace the one I sold with a current copy or wait for a possible upgrade. But I liked the clarity and sharpness of the 4, so I've decided to just go ahead and get the current one. I plan to keep my 2.8 as well, using it when I can easily use my tripod, but going with the f4 for walking around.

My only problem with the 2.8 is that it is too heavy to carry easily . . .

Thanks again for sharing your opinions.

Zen ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2013, 05:39:32 PM »

Hector1970

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2013, 06:07:09 PM »
I own the 2.8 II but have used the F4.
Both are great. Of all my lens I think the 2.8 is the best .
It's absolutely brilliant for sports and for portraits.
The F4 is way lighter and cheaper and very very good. You will love it but maybe crave the 2.8
The 2.8 will either give you big muscles or a repetitive strain injury.
But it's wonderful and even after 2 years it hasn't lost its appeal .
I have the 85mm II and I wouldn't rate it anywhere near as good.
It's too tricky at times whereas the 70-200mm always comes up trumps.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 8893
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2013, 06:27:04 PM »
I delayed and tried the f/2.8 twice before finally switching.  Eventually, I sold the f/4 IS because it wasn't being used.  I did it only because I managed to get the f/2.8 version for $1600.

I do quite a bit of very low light shooting where ISO 12800 and higher is often needed at f/2.8, so now my primes are getting little use.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2013, 06:27:04 PM »