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

[briansquibb]

it kinda comes down to whether or not you need the extra stop for low-light situations.

... and background blur ....

Not sure about the beating the 135 though - I think the bokeh on the 135 is better too

[bdunbar79]

it kinda comes down to whether or not you need the extra stop for low-light situations.

... and background blur ....

Not sure about the beating the 135 though - I think the bokeh on the 135 is better too

I shot a parade today with nothing but the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS (can we just call this the 70-200 II so I don't have to type all that out everytime?) and the pictures were so sharp I was amazed.  However, I never shot below f/6.3, so the f/4 IS version I'm sure would have worked just as well.  Make the decision point on aperture because the IQ is not that different, if at all.

[Rokkor 58mm 1.2]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question. I found your input to be very valuable and helpful.

I decided to go with the 70-200 f/4 IS, and placed my order for it and a 5D MK3 body today. While I love fast lenses, I went with the f/4 because compared to the f/2.8 II, it is $1000 less expensive after the current rebates are added in.
Equally important, and the real deal maker, is the size and weight of each. The f/2.8 II weighs 1490 grams and the f/4 comes in at 760 grams. I own the 24-70 f/2.8 which weights 950g. I actually like the heft of the 24-70, but it's on the edge of being uncomfortable to use hand held for more than an hour or so. I was afraid that the f/2.8 II would be too much to lug around, especially since travel photography is one of major uses I would put it to.

[K-amps]

The 70-200mk.ii can replace the following zooms,

70mm f2.8, 71mm f2.8, 72mm f2.8.......................199mm f2.8 and also the 200 f2.8, all 130 of them. I kid u not.

[donjensen]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question. I found your input to be very valuable and helpful.

I decided to go with the 70-200 f/4 IS, and placed my order for it and a 5D MK3 body today. While I love fast lenses, I went with the f/4 because compared to the f/2.8 II, it is $1000 less expensive after the current rebates are added in.
Equally important, and the real deal maker, is the size and weight of each. The f/2.8 II weighs 1490 grams and the f/4 comes in at 760 grams. I own the 24-70 f/2.8 which weights 950g. I actually like the heft of the 24-70, but it's on the edge of being uncomfortable to use hand held for more than an hour or so. I was afraid that the f/2.8 II would be too much to lug around, especially since travel photography is one of major uses I would put it to.

Good choice, I have that combination as well. Even though I would prefere the 2.8, it's just too expensive and heavy compared to the 2.8.
f4 is just so much value for money, and it's insanely sharp!

[avatar13]

I too was in your boat.  I owned the 70-200mm f/4 for almost 3 years and it was a great lens.  It was tack sharp wide open and it was about 1.5lbs so it was not too bad to walk around with (I had a 40D at the time, upgraded now to 5D MIII).  I never had an issues with the lens and on my crop made for a very nice portrait lens.  I have now upgraded to the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and sold the f/4 and this is easily the best lens I own (it's ultra responsive responsive as the f/4 was and tack sharp at all apertures but it's tack sharp at 2.8 which a lot of zooms are not).  HOWEVER, it weighs twice as much and is like $1k more.  I will remove the tripod collar when I am out to reduce the weight somewhat so believe me there are times when I do miss the f/4!  But I really wanted the f/2.8 even at double the weight.  You cannot go wrong either way and the f/4 is an excellent lens.  Ideally I would have kept both!