Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

[SteenerMe]

The 70-200IS II is the best lens ive ever used. If you want the absolute best then thats where its at. When comparing pics on dpreview type sites you must remember that those are under ideal conditions. I dont know about you but when i shoot the conditions are anything but ideal. This being said the 2.8Is II gives me the most consistant results even in the hardest situations. The weight you get used to, but the high amount of keepers never gets old to me. If you can afford it get it. You have onebof the best bodys, why not pair it with the best glass. With the new af tracking and IS on the lens you can freeze anything sharp.

[Michael_pfh]

I upgraded from 70-200 F4L IS USM to 70-200 F2.8L IS USM II 1.5 years ago and have not regretted it. I did like the F4 version a lot for its comparably light weight and compact size but I do value the extra stop more. Both lenses are among the sharpest zooms I have used.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11

Check out SLR Gear reviews on these lenses.  Take a look at the Blur Charts that represent IQ.
Surprisingly the f4 lens has slightly better IQ, but with much less weight.  Unless you need f2.8... I wouldn't upgrade at all. 

Those links are to the f/2.8 IS USM mk 1, and the mk 2 should be optically superior to the mk 1.

Anyway, the f/4 IS USM is, from experience, an excellent lens. The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.

A tripod gets a similar response. One time I shot a building next to occupy someplace, and one of the protesters just stood up in front of the camera and started preaching. Telling her I was sent there to shoot for a news segment about construction code violations made her leave so fast I didn't have to make up any more details.

[candyman]

The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.

    +1
That happened to me as well. Asking for what sportsmagazine I work. What a disappointment to them when I told them the photo's will not show up in any magazine. LOL

[GuyF]

All,

Many thanks for all the replies. It just underlines what a terrific resource this forum is - post a query in the evening and next morning there are 3 pages of opinions! Plus nobody resorted to name calling!

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

[Gothmoth]

I may have the wrong 2.8.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS.  There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.

well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible.

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

the main advantage of the f4 is weight.

i shoot landscapes with my 70-200 f4 most of the time (means hiking and travelling)
i rarely ever want to use the 70-200 lens at something faster then f5.6.

when i want to do portraits or something with a narrow DOF i use my fast prime lenses (85mm f1.2 or 135 f2).

70-200 f4 + 85mm f1.2 = 1785g in my kata backpack
70-200 f2.8 II + 85mm f1.2 = 2515g in my kata backpack

that´s why i have the 70-200mm f4 and not the f2.8.
it´s lightweight and fits my needs... your mileage may vary.

the 70-200 f2.8 II is sure a fantastic allrounder.
and the corner sharpness is impressive.

[Greatland]

If you are primarily an outdoor shooter the f4 should suffice.  If you are shooting indoor, or in low light, the decision to go with the 2.8 is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion.  Indoor sports photographers all have this lens and there is a reason.  Plus the version II is a sharper and better lense, period....of course cost and weight are a lot different as well.

[Menace]

"So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result? "

Keep flipping the coin until you land on f2.8 II - simple 

[HarryWintergreen]

Both lenses are masterpieces by Canon. Arguing about what lense has the edge to me doesn't makes sense. F/2.8 can be an tremendous advantage. But since you already have the 300 f/2.8 this should not weigh too heavy. A lense is a tool. Not to be restricted by the weight when it comes to shooting over a longer period of time to me is quite important, too.

[Cali_PH]

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

I used to use pennies, but once I switched to nickels I haven't looked back.  Sure, they weigh a lot more, but you can do more with them and the quality difference is amazing.  Plus once I started using quarters, I hardly notice the weight difference.  Compare for yourself:

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Penny

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Nickel

[GuyF]

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

I used to use pennies, but once I switched to nickels I haven't looked back.  Sure, they weigh a lot more, but you can do more with them and the quality difference is amazing.  Plus once I started using quarters, I hardly notice the weight difference.  Compare for yourself:

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Penny

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Nickel

Hey Cali, those sites are fantastic! Things are much clearer now but I only have access to UK currency though I do think I've got a US quarter somewhere.

There must be a site out there that converts flipped US coins to UK sterling....

Found it!

http//www.Flippin'marvellousUStoUKconversions.com/toomuchtimeonyourhands

Oh thank you internet!

[GuyF]

I may have the wrong 2.8.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS.  There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.

well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible.

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

the main advantage of the f4 is weight.

i shoot landscapes with my 70-200 f4 most of the time (means hiking and travelling)
i rarely ever want to use the 70-200 lens at something faster then f5.6.

when i want to do portraits or something with a narrow DOF i use my fast prime lenses (85mm f1.2 or 135 f2).

70-200 f4 + 85mm f1.2 = 1785g in my kata backpack
70-200 f2.8 II + 85mm f1.2 = 2515g in my kata backpack

that´s why i have the 70-200mm f4 and not the f2.8.
it´s lightweight and fits my needs... your mileage may vary.

the 70-200 f2.8 II is sure a fantastic allrounder.
and the corner sharpness is impressive.

Gothmoth,

Pretty similar position to you but use the Sigma 85 f1.4 for portraits. Looks like I might keep the f4.

Guy.

[IIIHobbs]

Guy, stop for a moment, relax, breathe.

Before selling your current zoom or buying another, consider keeping your zoom and getting a 135 f2 to provide amazing speed and bokeh at the middle of your current zoom range.


135 f2L 1/800 @ f2

It's light weight, super fast, sharp and mch less conspicuous than any of the great whites. It is perfect for posed or candid portraits, indoors and out.

[GuyF]

IIIHobbs,

Sage words indeed however I don't feel I need another lens in that particular range. My Sigma 85mm f1.4 takes care of all the bokeh a man needs plus I can walk closer to my subject if required. 

I also have the option of the 24-105mm too; not fast by any stretch but it offers a useful range.

My reasoning behind the potential change to the f2.8 was the (likely) improvement in IQ (not that the f4 is lacking in this area) coupled with the benefit of the 5D3's focus accuracy with wider aperture lenses.

I'm sure your suggestion will give others an often overlooked lens to consider.

Guy.

[K-amps]

I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one.

It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.

The f2.8 is fluid , soft and dreamy (and sharp) while the F4 is clinical and analytical and cold. Yes these are adjectives used for Audio, but they fit perfectly here. I can take many lenses and shoot portraits, but the ones people pick out as their favs is the F2.8 mk.ii. There is no lens that gets me the “Ooohs” and “Ahhhs” like the f2.8 does. (Granted I have not used the 135 f2 yet)

There is a quality of the f2.8 mk.ii that cannot be quantified, it is just amazingly beautiful, creamy…. Dreamy.