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

[GuyF]

Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.

Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:

1. The f4 is fantastic. It's sharp and light enough that I can carry it around all afternoon in my hand without any bother.
2. The f2.8 is faster and the IS is no doubt better BUT it is almost twice the weight of the f4.

As I have arms like wet noodles the weight is a slight issue for all-day shooting but not necessarily a deal breaker (I've got the 300mm f2.8 IS too but I don't handhold it all afternoon).

So the real question is: is the f2.8 IQ significantly better than the f4? (The fact it should focus quicker and track better with the 5D3 is also a given).

What should I do?

Thanks for any opinions.

 

[Random Orbits]

Stay with the f/4. Nothing you wrote indicated that you would need the f/2.8. The f/4 performs about the same as the f/2.8. If you shot indoors or in low light and needed the extra stop, then it would be a good reason. Another reason would be for portraiture if you're interested in shallower DOF. If those reasons do not apply to you, save the grand and your arm.

 

[bdunbar79]

Stay with the f/4. Nothing you wrote indicated that you would need the f/2.8. The f/4 performs about the same as the f/2.8. If you shot indoors or in low light and needed the extra stop, then it would be a good reason. Another reason would be for portraiture if you're interested in shallower DOF. If those reasons do not apply to you, save the grand and your arm.

+1

 

[briansquibb]

Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.

Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:

1. The f4 is fantastic. It's sharp and light enough that I can carry it around all afternoon in my hand without any bother.
2. The f2.8 is faster and the IS is no doubt better BUT it is almost twice the weight of the f4.

As I have arms like wet noodles the weight is a slight issue for all-day shooting but not necessarily a deal breaker (I've got the 300mm f2.8 IS too but I don't handhold it all afternoon).

So the real question is: is the f2.8 IQ significantly better than the f4? (The fact it should focus quicker and track better with the 5D3 is also a given).

What should I do?

Thanks for any opinions.

The f/2.8 is an excellent lens - weight can be sorted with a monopod. I guess it depends on whether you need a fast lens or one with shallow DOF/bg blur

I would not bet on the speed of AF being faster for the f/4

 

[marekjoz]

Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6

 

[briansquibb]

Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6

+1

Plus of course + 1.4 still makes use of f/4 af points

 

[canon816]

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.

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is. The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is. The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.

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.

 

[Dylan777]

5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = A gift from heaven

If weight is the problem, then get a RS7 strap

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rs7+strap&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

 

[bkorcel]

Unless you plan to shoot wildlife, need the extra low light, or want to use Canon extenders, stick with the F4. The 5DIII can easily make up the light loss by using a higher ISO. Many people think the F/4 is sharper than the F2.8II. It's definately sharper than the F2.8IS but likely just comparable with the F2.8II.

That being said. I often use my 2.8L II with the canon 1.4x and sometimes with the 2X so you get more flexibility with that one but like I said, if you dont really have the need for it, save the money for when the 7D MarkII comes out.

 

[Dylan777]

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.

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is. The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.

That's NOT TRUE. I used both and 2.8 IS II is sharper.

Have you ever shoot with f2.8? or compared to f4 before?

Dylan

 

[tron]

I have both. The 2.8 IS II is insanely heavy. The f/4 IS covers the 90-95 percent of my needs and is VERY SHARP!

The IS in theory is exactly the same generation but since the 2.8 is so heavier I cannot steady it.
The result: It seems that the f/4's IS is better! I know it is not and it is just me but the net result is the same.

 

[Jamesy]

I have a 40D and 5D3 and own the 70-200 F4/IS. I borrowed my buddies 70-200 2.8 IS Mk.2 for a couple of days and while I loved the bokeh, I agree - it is insanely heavy. I would pick up the 5D3/Mk.2 combo and then the 40D/F4 combo and it felt like a toy in comparison.

I didn't do any pixel peeping between the two lenses but I can say that my F4 on the 5D3 is mighty sharp. Unless you need that extra stop then stick with what you have.

 

[Random Orbits]

Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6

This may not be a big factor for the OP since he already has the 300 f/2.8 IS...

 

[marekjoz]

Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6

This may not be a big factor for the OP since he already has the 300 f/2.8 IS...

So having already an extender he'd buy for 70-200 2.8, with 300 f2.8 he'd have 600 f5.6 Another good reason!

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

 

[Jamesy]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.

Half the weight of the OP 300 f/2.8

So no no no

 

[Jamesy]

I am referring to the OP question about the 70-200 2.8 verses the 4.0

 

[tron]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.

Half the weight of the OP 300 f/2.8

So no no no

You must practice by lifting the 600 f/4 L IS as if is a kind of weight! So the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will feel light comparatively