September 26, 2017, 12:04:46 AM

Author Topic: 70-200 4 IS or 70-200 2.8 II IS? Quality vs weight? I know 2.8 is quite heavy?  (Read 12229 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4755
Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.

My 70-300L was sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm. Photozone gets same result too.

Even my Tamron 70-300 VC was sharper at 70mm than 70-200 f/4 IS (70mm is the weakest point of the 70-200 f/4 IS), even if that was not the case everywhere else along the range.

70-200 f/4 IS had the least lateral CA at 70mm, but was also, oddly enough, the least sharp of the three for me under ultra careful testing (tripod, remote release, 25' to target, constant indoor lighting, best of 8-12 liveview 10x zoom attemps trials for each lens at each aperture).

70-200 f/4 IS was the sharpest of the three in the middle range of the zoom

70-300L was the sharpest at 185mm and up (although the 70-200 f/4 IS wasn't too far behind 185-200mm, the difference was much more noticeable over 200mm, with the 1.4x TC III on the 70-200 f/4 IS to let it get over 200mm).

Both 70-200 f4 IS and 70-300L are very good optically. Tamron is shockingly close at the edge, but actually it is in the center frame where it doesn't always have quite the same bite and sometmes has more halation and such.

I know TDP shows the 70-300L and Tamron doing badly at 70mm and the 70-300L only doing OK at 200mm and up and the Tamrom doing hideously, but those were not my results, nor those of Photozone and many others. It looks like he dropped his Tamron before testing and I really don't know how he got 70-200 f/4 IS+TC to look better than bare 70-300L. Maybe copy variation. Some say they have the 70-300L do relatively better in comparison to the 70-200 f/4 IS in the mid range and not at the extremes, so that may be copy variation, but it seems much more common the other way, with 70-300L doing relatively better at the extremes and worse mid-range, seems to me about 80% get the latter results and only 20%,if even and probably less, the other result.


« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 10:28:53 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

canon rumors FORUM


slclick

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1982
I have owned 3 different Canon 70-200's and the Tamron with VC. I now have the Canon 2.8 Mk2 and would never consider anything else. Weight be damned, image quality comes first. Oh and build, nothing else will do.

MacroBug

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
I bought the 2.8 II last week and can't get it off of my camera. I also have the 24-70 2.8 II and the 100 2.8L IS. The color and contrast is incredible and in some cases the photos look almost 3D. I sold my 70-200 f4L IS a few weeks ago because the f4 was limiting and I didn't really use it. Go with the 2.8II as it's well worth the money and extra weight!

djack41

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.

I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.

GMCPhotographics

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
    • GMCPhotographics
I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.

I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.

Yep, I had the f4 version for a while and I've had the f2.8 version for some time too. So for a while I had both. I bought the f4 for travelling and in that context, it was perfect. It was also far easier to use for close up work too, eg rocks, details and larger flowers. In this context it was better and sharper than the f2.8 and a lot easier to handle on a tripod. If I was going to buy again, I'd probably get the 70-300L instead. but to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.

mrsfotografie

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1623
  • M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • MRS fotografie
Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.

OP already choose the 70-200 IS4, so we could actually close this topic.


...to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.

True, for me it boils down to this:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II: This lens's f/2.8 and prime lens image quality allows me to forego a bunch of primes in these focal lengths. It's also the best event/reportage lens. Comes at a price but is the absolute king and works fabulously with a 1.4 teleconverter..

70-300L: Get this one for versatility and compactness; the ideal travel tele-zoom with stunning image quality. The placement of the focus ring near the camera body makes this a little awkward to use if you like to (fine-tune) focus manually.

70-200 f/4 IS: The excellent 70-200 for people with smaller weight and /or budget tolerance. The only reason not to get this is if you already own one of the two other lenses (which is why I've not owned one of these personally).
5D3, 5D2, G5X, G16 | SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 28/2.8 IS, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/1.8 STM, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, 70-300L IS, Ʃ150-600 OS HSM S

whothafunk

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
Post removed by Moderator
1Dx -- 300L f2.8 IS USM -- 70-200L f2.8 IS USM II -- 8-15L f4 Fisheye USM -- 24-70L f2.8 USM

canon rumors FORUM


skoobey

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
I will never, truly ever understand people who say 70-200 f2.8 (1.5kg) is heavy. Are you all super skinny with only bones and skin? I can hold my 70-200 with 70D 8 hour straight, as I did on several occasions. Sure my wrist hurt somewhat at the end of the day, but as I see this kind of whining, it's like you have to hold a 10kg barbell.

Bring on the "how dare you use that tone with us/mind your manners!".


"On several occasions" is not the same as almost every day. Also, if I did that, I would become skinny.
Heavy weights for short period of time=buff.
Light weights for a long period of time=skin and bones.
Everyone knows that.

I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?

How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?

Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!

DigitalDivide

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?

How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?

Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!

I choked at the price for the Canon ring too.  I got the Vello Tripod Collar A instead.  It is only $50 at B&H and is available in white to match the 70-200.  I haven't mounted that lens on a tripod so I can't comment on the stability; I used the collar with a BlackRapid strap, which allows the camera and lens to balance horizontally when I'm not holding it.

The Vello mount seems pretty well made and I have had no problems with it.  It doesn't rotate as smoothly as the Canon ring on my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS though, so if you like to switch between horizontal and vertical shots a lot that could be an issue.  I haven't compared it to the Canon f/4 ring so I don't know if it is any better in that regard.

wsheldon

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • sheldon-photo

I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?

How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?

Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!

You can probably find a more affordable third party mount ring ;)

I bought the Opteka tripod ring for ~$25, and it didn't prove to be worth keeping on the lens. The fit was loose (I couldn't tighten it down to maintain position without wobbling and rotating) and it appears to be made of some pot metal that is rough and not nearly as nice as the OEM rings on my 100-400 and 180 macro. The interior of the ring was lined with very thin paper-like felt that rubbed off immediately. So I never really used it because I was nervous about it breaking with the camera/lens attached and didn't think it held the lens tightly enough to minimize vibration when on the tripod, defeating the point.

Like others here I concluded that the lens is light enough to use hanging off the camera body when a tripod is needed, so I shouldn't have bothered.
Canon 6D & 50D, nice set of lenses

skoobey

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?

How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?

Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!

I choked at the price for the Canon ring too.  I got the Vello Tripod Collar A instead.  It is only $50 at B&H and is available in white to match the 70-200.  I haven't mounted that lens on a tripod so I can't comment on the stability; I used the collar with a BlackRapid strap, which allows the camera and lens to balance horizontally when I'm not holding it.

The Vello mount seems pretty well made and I have had no problems with it.  It doesn't rotate as smoothly as the Canon ring on my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS though, so if you like to switch between horizontal and vertical shots a lot that could be an issue.  I haven't compared it to the Canon f/4 ring so I don't know if it is any better in that regard.

Will check it out. Rotation is not a problem, as my tripod has that option, and that's the way I'm shooting now.

GAS

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
I went through the same dilemma in the past after I got the Canon 5D mkII, 24-105L. Originally I picked up the  100L as a portrait and macro lens due to the IS feature. Soon after that I picked up the 70-200L f/4 IS for traveling because it is smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 IS II version, and GAS got the better part of me so I sold the f/4 version to finance the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II upgrade.

If you have the money then buy both, but IMHO it is not worth the extra cost specially the extra weight because the f/4 IS is just as sharp, contrasty, and nice background blur as the f/2.8 IS II when both are at f/4. Except that the f/2.8 is faster and can blur the background a bit more because of the wider aperture. And, if you have the bad case of GAS then I would go with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II other wise you will always yearn for the bigger and faster lens.


canon rumors FORUM