November 25, 2014, 10:23:11 PM

Author Topic: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?  (Read 6856 times)

bfmawhinney

  • Guest
70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:48:53 PM »
Refurbished, the 70-200 2.8L costs almost exactly the same as the 70-200 4L IS.  I currently have the 70-200 on a 550D body, and am expecting to go FF and am interested in upgrading this lens to improve IQ.  Don't have the extra grand to get the 2.8L IS.  Any opinions on IQ, build quality, handling, etc.?


canon rumors FORUM

70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:48:53 PM »

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2012, 05:04:41 PM »
Do you need f2.8 and are happy carrying the extra weight?




Decision made!
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L /180 3.5L/ 300 4L / 100-400L

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2012, 05:42:05 PM »
Do you need f2.8 and are happy carrying the extra weight?
Yep, I'd say look at your pictures right now. Are a lot of them shot at f/2.8? Or, are a lot of them shot at lower shutter speeds (where IS would help)? Do you need to freeze subjects a lot (f/2.8 means faster shutter speed)? And, do you shoot a lot of the pictures at one end or the other (70mm, 200mm, etc)?

Just going from the T2i to a FF body will improve your light handling, so you might not need f/2.8 as much. Going to FF you'll lose some of the reach of the lens, but, also gain some on the wide end. If you use it at 70-135 a lot, you'll like that, if you use it at 200mm a lot, you might find you want more reach. In that case, there'd be some other things to consider.

bp

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2012, 06:27:48 PM »
The f4 IS is one of the sharpest canon has made.  Sharper than the 2.8 (non-IS and IS mk1 - not sharper than the IS mk2, they're about equal).   Look at the typical lighting you expect to shoot under.   If it'll usually be brightly lit, I'd go for the f4 IS and enjoy the razor sharp IQ.  If you find yourself often in low light, the 2.8 may be more valuable
5D3 - 5D2 - 7D - T2i   | 24L II | 35L | 85L II | 100L | 135L | 24-105L | 70-200 IS II | Shorty Forty | 50 1.4 | Bower 14 | Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 | 2x III

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2012, 07:37:17 PM »
If you need to stop action in low light or will be using it for portraits, get the f/2.8. Else, I'd say the f/4 IS is the better choice.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

llcanon

  • Guest
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2012, 08:34:22 PM »
I'd go with the 2.8 mk II if you don't mind the price and weight. Then you won't have those situations where you wish you had the faster one. Getting the best in class will stop you from blaming on the equipment. You won't regret it.

bkorcel

  • Guest
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2012, 10:44:26 PM »
Both are excellent lenses.  However keep in mind the F4 IS has only 1 or 2 stops of IS correction.  The 2.8L II has 4 stops!!!  You are not only getting faster shutter speed at F2.8 but you can actually hand hold up to 4 stops less than that.

I've used both and now have the 2.8 II.  It's by far the better lens technically (sharpness about the same).  Plus you can use the 1.4 and 2X extenders with the 2.8 if needed and still have a very useable 300mm f/4 and 400mm f5.6.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2012, 10:44:26 PM »

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2012, 10:50:39 PM »
Both are excellent lenses.  However keep in mind the F4 IS has only 1 or 2 stops of IS correction.  The 2.8L II has 4 stops!!!  You are not only getting faster shutter speed at F2.8 but you can actually hand hold up to 4 stops less than that.

I've used both and now have the 2.8 II.  It's by far the better lens technically (sharpness about the same).  Plus you can use the 1.4 and 2X extenders with the 2.8 if needed and still have a very useable 300mm f/4 and 400mm f5.6.

Agreed.  I had owned the F4, but if you have the funds definately go with the 2.8II.  Fast and sharp.
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

heavybarrel

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2012, 11:26:15 PM »
If you are referring to the 70-200 f/2.8L without IS, I believe the f/4 is much better optically. Of course, the f/2.8 II is a better lens but it's going to be more than twice as much! I would just rent the f/4 and see how you like it. Or you can buy one off craigslist and turn around and sell it for the same price if you don't like it. I have the f/2.8 II on a FF but I still borrow my buddy's f/4 sometimes (he's always happy with that trade for the weekend lol) when I'm shooting in daylight. I feel it handles a lot better simply because it's smaller and much lighter. The best thing is to try it out and see what makes you happy before you blow a grand.

bfmawhinney

  • Guest
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2012, 12:14:23 AM »
This has been really helpful; thank you all.  The typo at the top is that I currently have the 4L (non IS).  With some of the comments about sharpness, I'm thinking the 4L IS is the upgrade of choice.  I don't shoot indoor sports, and while low light is one of my favorite times to shoot, I'd rather have a faster prime for those occasions.

Gotta love the Canon refurb store...

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2012, 12:46:25 AM »
I had the f4 IS. I since traded it in for the 2.8 IS II (since I was really pushing the ISO limit indoors with f4) and absolutely love it. Since you mentioned you don't do sports, you probably don't need the extra stop of the 2.8- instead, IS will come in handy (and would probably be much more useful than the extra stop to you). I think the IS version has better image quality, too.

ScottyP

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2012, 01:29:44 AM »
I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field...
If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did.  But I am an idiot.  I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2012, 01:51:09 AM »
I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field...
If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did.  But I am an idiot.  I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.

+1

I find it strange that people want fast lens for indoor work when shooting wide open the DOF becomes so shallow that only 1 eye is in focus unless the subject is absoloutely face on

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2012, 01:51:09 AM »

aznable

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2012, 07:03:51 AM »
Refurbished, the 70-200 2.8L costs almost exactly the same as the 70-200 4L IS.  I currently have the 70-200 on a 550D body, and am expecting to go FF and am interested in upgrading this lens to improve IQ.  Don't have the extra grand to get the 2.8L IS.  Any opinions on IQ, build quality, handling, etc.?

the F4 IS is a bit sharper , has stabilization, is better sealed than the 2.8 and it weight the half;

do you need 2.8? that's the question
Canon 1D Mark III - Canon 50D - sigma 24-70 EX DG - sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM OS - Sigma 50 Art

DB

  • Guest
Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2012, 07:50:10 AM »
Do you intend on shooting predominantly handheld? If so, then get the f4 IS version. I have it and take shots @ 1/15th of a second and they're still pretty sharp. Pros like David Stocklein us the smaller/lighter f4 L IS when shooting handheld (see video):

Canon EOS 7D - A day in life, featuring David Stoecklein - Introduction 1/9

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2012, 07:50:10 AM »