EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

[Rokkor 58mm 1.2]

Like a lot if us, I've got the bug and want the 5D MkIII. The current double rebate offering from Canon is motivating me to act soon. I'd really like to get the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, but even with the $400 double rebate, that lens with the 5D MkIII would cost about $5600. Talk about sticker shock!   So, I'm considering the EF 70-200 f/4L instead at about half the cost with half the rebate. I don't have any experience with either lens. How do they compare as far as sharpness and general IQ are concerned? It looks like the f/2.8L II is the better lens with it's faster aperature, but the f/4L might be a good trade off since its smaller, lighter, and cheaper. My main concern is the image quality of the f/4L compared to the f/2.8L II.

[Razor2012]

Like a lot if us, I've got the bug and want the 5D MkIII. The current double rebate offering from Canon is motivating me to act soon. I'd really like to get the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, but even with the $400 double rebate, that lens with the 5D MkIII would cost about $5600. Talk about sticker shock!   So, I'm considering the EF 70-200 f/4L instead at about half the cost with half the rebate. I don't have any experience with either lens. How do they compare as far as sharpness and general IQ are concerned? It looks like the f/2.8L II is the better lens with it's faster aperature, but the f/4L might be a good trade off since its smaller, lighter, and cheaper. My main concern is the image quality of the f/4L compared to the f/2.8L II.

I've owned both, I had the F4 on a 40D.  The 2.8II is definately a bit sharper and faster, but the F4 is still really great alternative...especially if a person is on a tighter budget.

[DB]

I have the smaller f/4L IS USM lens on my 7D and it is even sharper handheld than my nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.4) stopped down to the same aperture.

I read a review recently that listed 3 key differences between the f/4L IS and 'non-IS', obviously firstly the Image Stabilization, secondly; the weather-shielding, but also thirdly that it was sharper in the center @ 85mm. If the latter is true, it would be an interesting test vs the f/2.8L Mk II, at that particular focal length.

Last year, whilst shooting some HD video with it I got some really amazing lens flare (as I panned from left to right, you could see the aperture blades shape and some nice colours)  + nice bokeh too on some background stuff.

If you intend on using your new 5D3 mainly outdoors, then the f/4 L IS will certainly give you some great images. In terms of image quality, there could not be more than a hair's breadth between these two lenses.

I can empathize with your dilemma, the newer 2.8L is apparently like a series of 'primes' stuffed into a tube, but is definitely big money. Then again the 5D mk III costs a grand more than this lens....so sticker shock should be limited as you should not scrimp when it comes to glass (imagine getting a 1DX and sticking a 50mm f/1.4 instead of a 1.2L on it?!). If I had the cash, I would get the lens before the camera body, but hey, that's just me.

[robbymack]

I don't know if this is asked more or if the endless 24-70 vs 24-105 debate is more popular...the funny thing is it really isn't all that hard.  They are both excellent lenses, you'll be happy with either.  It comes down to whether you want f 2.8 or f4?  For me it was easy, f4 IS, because weight matters, and to be honest when I want to stop action in low light my 85 1.8 and 135 L are much better than any 2.8 zoom, but I also don't usually need to rapidly switch between focal lengths.  If I did then a 2.8 zoom would probably be better.  These days on that rare occasion I just use my f4IS and add a strobe, easy peasy. 

[vbi]

I have both and can confirm that both are excellent lenses and while the 2.8 is sharper it is not by much...in fact only noticeable if you pixel peep very carefully.

The 4IS was released fairly recently and was at the time the sharpest of all the 70-200 range. The 2.8II has now caught up, not necessarily bypassed the 4IS. See the reviewers comments

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

[briansquibb]

I got super sharp images with my 70-200 f/4 on a 5D2
I get super sharp images with my 70-200 f/2.8II on my 1DS3

I believe that the difference in IQ is insignificant when the other factors are added - both will give excellent results doing their own thing.

Other factors might be:

Speed of lens giving handshake or motion blur, bg blur
Low light IS
Weight

and so on

[tron]

I have both. The f/4 IS is much more practical. It is much lighter and this in combination with great IS gives very good results
in low speeds. Keep in mind that others may beg to differ. Some find easier to hold still a heavier lens. I don't.
I forgot to mention that I am referring mainly to landscape use. The 2.8 is better for portraits and action though.

In addition, you can spend the difference to get the great 135mm f/2.0L.

Good luck with your choice. Anyway you can't go wrong with either...

[Steve Campbell]

I have the f4 IS and have rented the f2.8 II. The f2.8 II is considered to be one of the best zooms available from any manufacturer and was very sharp. However, the f4 is super sharp also and very little difference in real world viewing can be seen. The f4 is half the price and readily available for around $1000 used also. It is also half the weight. It's a very compact, easy to carry lens for what it provides. The f2.8 II is a beast. Bigger and heavier. You do not need a tripod collar to make the f4 work on a tripod, which is good since Canon doesn't provide one.

The f2.8 II is metal construction, the f4 is not, but build quality is still excellent. Cheaper 67mm filters for the f4 vs 77mm for the f2.8 II, although I find many of the popular lenses that you find in many bags, such as the 17-40 and 24-105, 300 f4 etc are also 77mm filter size, so the 77mm may be a plus.

If someone offered me one or the other, I would take the f2.8 II, but in the $2500 range new, the f4 looks all the better in the real world. If you like to hike or travel, the size and weight of the f4 is a real plus.

Both lenses are great.

[drjlo]

The 2.8 is better for portraits and action though.

In addition, you can spend the difference to get the great 135mm f/2.0L.

If one plans to do a lot of portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 II would be preferred for the nicer bokeh.  Setting the 70-200 at 200mm, stand back a little, set to f/2.8, and the background can be incredibly beautiful.  My 135L has smoother bokeh wide-open than 70-200 at 135mm wide-open, but at 200mm, f/2.8 is VERY nice..

[briansquibb]

The 2.8 is better for portraits and action though.

In addition, you can spend the difference to get the great 135mm f/2.0L.

If one plans to do a lot of portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 II would be preferred for the nicer bokeh.  Setting the 70-200 at 200mm, stand back a little, set to f/2.8, and the background can be incredibly beautiful.  My 135L has smoother bokeh wide-open than 70-200 at 135mm wide-open, but at 200mm, f/2.8 is VERY nice..

The 200 f/2 is king for bokeh for portraits - even better than the 135 f/2

[drjlo]

I'll trade you my 135L for your 200 f/2 

[briansquibb]

I'll trade you my 135L for your 200 f/2 

Give me a moment to consider that 

[Dylan777]

If money is NOT an issue; 70-200 f2.8 IS II is the way to go. This lens is TACKSHARP even at 2.8. You will enjoy the 2.8 bokeh.

[Ew]

The 2.8 is better for portraits and action though.

In addition, you can spend the difference to get the great 135mm f/2.0L.

If one plans to do a lot of portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 II would be preferred for the nicer bokeh.  Setting the 70-200 at 200mm, stand back a little, set to f/2.8, and the background can be incredibly beautiful.  My 135L has smoother bokeh wide-open than 70-200 at 135mm wide-open, but at 200mm, f/2.8 is VERY nice..

These are the only times I swap out the 4Lis and put on the 100/f2.

I love the 4Lis, but always wonder....  what if?

[Axilrod]

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is arguably the best zoom lens in the world.  It's as sharp as the 135L and 200L (the f/2.8, not f/2) and that says a lot.  Having the sharpness of primes in a zoom makes it totally worth it to me.  But at the same time the 70-200 f/4 IS is also an excellent lens and you'd be hard pressed to see a difference in sharpness, it kinda comes down to whether or not you need the extra stop for low-light situations.  But with the Mark III's performance at high ISO's you could probably get by just fine.