Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens

[Hillsilly]

I've got a 70-200 f/4 IS and its an excellent lens.  However, since picking up a 135 f/2, I rarely use the 70-200.  The 135 is sharp at f/2.  While the zoom is good at f/4, it is much better at f/5.6.  All things being equal, you can use a much faster shutter speed with the 135, whereas a slower shutter speed on the zoom might lead to some motion blur.  The wider aperture of the 135 also allows you to blur backgrounds more if you want (which is a nice look for some portraits).  Also, its not a big white lens - you feel a little less conspicuous carrying it. They're both around the same price - I'd at least give it some thought.

[KKCFamilyman]

Thanks for the replies.

I purchased the 70-200 f4 is. $1100 seemed like a good price. It's new and I know I can sell it later if need be for minimal loss. I think it complements my 24-105. Now that I have the telephoto covered. I am going for the 24-70 II year end or early next. Either way thanks for all the advice. I looked and held the 70-200 2.8 and it just is too heavy for the extra stop. Also the cost is soo much. I think this will let me see if I feel limited by the aperature and if so then I will sell it and go for the 70-200. At least then I will know I need it. I looked at the 200 2.8mm and 135l but for me I need zoom since my family makes me have to react fast and it's too hard to change lenses of focus on moving around. I think this will be a good start. If Canon releases the infamous 14-24 or 35l II then maybe that will be my next lens. I also will probably end up with the eos m and use my lenses on that for when I need to travel light. That makes the lens I purchased that much more useful vs the 2.8 counterpart. Anyway thanks everyone.

[jdramirez]

Thanks. I just wish I rented it at home. I got it for a trip and only used it for a handful of shots but they were great shots. I just don't want to feel compelled because of the deal but then again if it's going to likely rise a few hundred then I would just buy it now.

Go to Canon price watch and see what the price has been the last 2 years.  The last time the lens was at 1100 was fall of 2010.  So you aren't buying it while it is the most expensive, and with inflation, you are getting a deal. 

[jondave]

Thanks for the replies.

I purchased the 70-200 f4 is. $1100 seemed like a good price. It's new and I know I can sell it later if need be for minimal loss. I think it complements my 24-105. Now that I have the telephoto covered. I am going for the 24-70 II year end or early next. Either way thanks for all the advice. I looked and held the 70-200 2.8 and it just is too heavy for the extra stop. Also the cost is soo much. I think this will let me see if I feel limited by the aperature and if so then I will sell it and go for the 70-200. At least then I will know I need it. I looked at the 200 2.8mm and 135l but for me I need zoom since my family makes me have to react fast and it's too hard to change lenses of focus on moving around. I think this will be a good start. If Canon releases the infamous 14-24 or 35l II then maybe that will be my next lens. I also will probably end up with the eos m and use my lenses on that for when I need to travel light. That makes the lens I purchased that much more useful vs the 2.8 counterpart. Anyway thanks everyone.

Congratulations on the purchase. Nothing can beat primes, but they do have their specific place and for a lot of us the versatility of an L zoom outweighs the IQ advantage of a fast prime.

Good point on the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It's better on all aspects, if you don't mind lugging the extra weight. Thing is, the 70-200mm f4 is so good already (it's even better than the 70-200 2.8 Mk I) that you wouldn't actually know there's a better zoom unless you've actually used the 2.8 II. So no regrets, enjoy and be confident that you've made the right decision.

[drolo61]

I fully agree. Stepped up from an 70-300 while using a rented 70-200 for the weekend. The IQ difference is incredible

[tomscott]

I vote 70-200mm Non IS F2.8 I have one and its wonderful, but you need a steady hand but at 2.8 it is stunning. That or the 70-300mm.

[Marsu42]

Stepped up from an 70-300 while using a rented 70-200 for the weekend. The IQ difference is incredible

... you are talking about the 70-300 non-L, aren't you?

[Dylan777]

You could always buy it, use it for a while and sell it if you no longer like it or if it doesnt fit your needs. I buy and sell lenses a lot.

+1....I like to keep lenses that I use often, not one a year

[KKCFamilyman]

Thanks I am really glad I did ended up with it for $1049 out the door so feel real good about my purchase till I know how much I use this range.

[KKCFamilyman]

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?

[jdramirez]

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?

I'm gonna guess bicep curls.

[jondave]

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?

Don't forget ab and back exercises. That thing can seriously hurt your spine if you sling it on your neck the whole day.

But seriously, only you can decide if what you'll get from the 2.8 is worth an extra grand. Probably yes if you're shooting professionally. Or if you have the money for it, does it really matter if it's worth it? Otherwise there's no need to get it, it's not as if it will make a night and day difference to your photos.

[Random Orbits]

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?

I use a BR strap.  If you think the weight of the f/2.8 will be too much for you, then you should stay with the f/4.

f/2.8 is only one stop faster.  Are you going to be happy with the IQ if you halve the ISO?  More likely, you should avoid the f/2.8 zooms if you're trying to take indoor photos without flash.  f/2.8 is not fast enough.  You need f/1.2 or f/1.4, which has a 3+ advantage compared to the f/4, which becomes significant.  The DOF also gets a lot thinner, so that is the trade off.  So my suggestion is to keep the 70-200 f/4 and thinking about adding a high speed prime (i.e. 35, 50 or 85) for indoor use for single subjects.  For multiple subjects or for deeper DOF, you're going to need a flash regardless.

[marekjoz]

It's a great lens but I'm trying to sell it or switch to 300 F/4 because of the reach lack.

[Act444]

I used to have 70-200 f/4 IS, but honestly it didn't fit me well. Specially if you taking a lot of candid and portrait, I would say use 70-200 f/2.8 will serve your need much better. Now I use 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and I love this lens (except for the weight, after I carrying it around for a while )

I took the same route. I had the 70-200 f4 before- great lens, but I was pushing it to its limits for indoor events when I needed longer reach, so I saved up and bought the f2.8 version. It opened up many shots for me that just were not possible with the f4 lens- but at the same time, the extra size and weight is a bear.

It depends on what you shoot though. The OP mentioned tracking kids- I suppose with the FF 5D3 you could push the ISO upwards of 6400 without taking too much of a hit in quality, so the f4 version shouldn't be a problem. There's the (much!) lighter weight and $$ savings to consider. Since I have a 1.6x 60D, I needed the 2.8 since I can't reasonably push ISO higher than 3200 on it.