70-200 4 IS or 70-200 2.8 II IS? Quality vs weight? I know 2.8 is quite heavy?

Sort by date Sort by votes
S

skoobey

Jun 12, 2013
120
0
5,781
#1
Yes, about these two, I've used 100 2.8L macro, love it for beauty work, don't use it enough to actually buy it, but it is a great lens. I also use 24-105 as my walk around lens, and it is great for that, however, I'm looking for my new go to lens for studio work.

I shoot mostly studio work, beauty, stills, and portraits.

Now, how sharper is the 2.8 over the 4.0? Chromatic aberrations? I've read all the reviews, and I concluded that except that it's much slower(less bokeh), that it is only marginally less sharp?

I know I want 4.0 for the weight savings, and non-IS version is not an option. Is the 2.8 really that much better if I
don't need 2.8 aperture?

How about distortion? I really like 0 distortion on the macro lenses. My most used focal lengths are 35,50,70 and 105(which would probably be 135-150 on 70-200 lens).
 
#2
If you don't need/want f/2.8, I'd go with the f/4 IS. The 2.8 II is very slightly sharper, probably not enough of a difference to matter in real-world use. I have the 2.8 II, love it, but for travel I take the 70-300L.
 
Upvote 0
#3
I tried both out for an extended period of time and could not see any difference in image quality.

I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.

The F4 version is a LOT! lighter and smaller. I hike a lot and it's ease of carrying is what sealed the deal for me.

I ended up getting the F4... it is my favourite lens.
 
Upvote 0
#4
skoobey said:
How about distortion? I really like 0 distortion on the macro lenses. My most used focal lengths are 35,50,70 and 105(which would probably be 135-150 on 70-200 lens).
Click to expand...

Here's the distortion at 135 on both lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&FLI=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=2

And a comparison of the mk II at 135 and the 135/2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=2&FLIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&LensComp=108
 
Upvote 0
#6
I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ. I would make your decision on the following:

Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
- 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
- shallower DOF (both have great bokeh, but f/2.8 is better for subject isolation - though f/4 at 150-200mm provides plenty shallow DOF for most purposes including portraits)
- somewhat tougher (all metal vs. excellent engineering plastic) build quality
- a tripod ring in the box (though the f/4 IS + way overpriced Canon ring is still much cheaper than the f/2.8 IS II)
-AF with the 2xIII extender on all bodies

For me, it is, but if I traveled much at all or didn't need the low light speed of f/2.8, I'd go back to the f/4 IS.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Don Haines said:
I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.
Click to expand...

I find this strange. I had both at the same time for a brief period and while the AF on the F/4 is no slouch, I always felt it was noticeably slower than the 2.8ii.
 
Upvote 0
#8
mackguyver said:
I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ. I would make your decision on the following:

Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
- 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
- shallower DOF (both have great bokeh, but f/2.8 is better for subject isolation - though f/4 at 150-200mm provides plenty shallow DOF for most purposes including portraits)
- somewhat tougher (all metal vs. excellent engineering plastic) build quality
- a tripod ring in the box (though the f/4 IS + way overpriced Canon ring is still much cheaper than the f/2.8 IS II)
-AF with the 2xIII extender on all bodies

For me, it is, but if I traveled much at all or didn't need the low light speed of f/2.8, I'd go back to the f/4 IS.
Click to expand...

What Mackguyver said....spot on with my findings too!
Just to add, I think any difference between lenses (f2.8 vs f4) is more likely to be copy variation than any measurable statistic. In real world use they are optically and pertty much mechanically equal, except for the lesser build on the f4.
 
Upvote 0
#9
I replaced a 70-300 non-L with the 70-200 2.8L II IS and was very leery of the extra weight. I had already experienced headaches from shoulder bags with an old Rebel XT and the 70-300 non-L, so the weight of the new lens on the slightly heavier 60D did concern me. Ultimately, it's not an issue.

Of course, your mileage may vary and my needs are different. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and events. The 2.8 is critical for low light sports and the IS is critical for events with even less light.

I also dabble in portraits and this lens is my first choice. I love the flexibility of having 2.8 to isolate the subject. I bought the lens for low-light speed and expected the shallow DOF to be an added benefit. But, I didn't fully appreciate 2.8 -- especially on FF -- until I used it.

Since first getting the 70-200, I've switched to full frame and now routinely carry two 5D3's, one with a short zoom and one with the 70-200. The latter is by far my most used lens. The weight issue was solved with shoulder bags from ThinkTank and, most recently, Capture Clips by Peak Design.

I appreciate the temptation for the lighter and cheaper lens, but I can't imagine not having the heavier 2.8.
 
Upvote 0
#10
I had the same question before I finally bought f/2.8L II. The biggest concern then is weight.

After owning the lens for half a year, I have never regretted the decision. I often take 2.8 out three to four hours, not once do I feel it is too heavy for my hand.
 
Upvote 0
#11
raptor3x said:
Don Haines said:
I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.
Click to expand...

I find this strange. I had both at the same time for a brief period and while the AF on the F/4 is no slouch, I always felt it was noticeably slower than the 2.8ii.
Click to expand...
Could be the body.... I compared on a 60D. Are you shooting with a 1DX? Some lenses are noticeably faster with it...
 
Upvote 0
#13
I owned a f/4 IS for years, it was and still is wonderful. After owning 6 or 7 of the f/2.8 versions, I bought the f/2.8 MK II version and sold the f/4. It is heavier, but not so much that its a problem. If I plan to use it for hours non stop, I use a monopod.


You will not go wrong with either.
 
Upvote 0
#16
Regardless of weight, I use my 1Ds Mk3 plus 70-200 2.8 ll more often than any other lens. Having owned and tested a multitude of 70-200 variations and not finding any to be nearly as sharp as my primes, my Mk2 now out-resolves all my other lenses in this range.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Derrick said:
Regardless of weight, I use my 1Ds Mk3 plus 70-200 2.8 ll more often than any other lens. Having owned and tested a multitude of 70-200 variations and not finding any to be nearly as sharp as my primes, my Mk2 now out-resolves all my other lenses in this range.
Click to expand...

This lens is also the reason why I have no primes in those focal lengths, save the 100L macro.
 
Upvote 0
#19
It seems weight is importance factor for you. The f/4 IS is no doubt much lighter.

Do you use a strap system like a BlackRapid or something like that. Using something like a strap system or a Spyder holster system might make the f/2.8L IS II manageable for 4 - 6 hour sessions.

One major reason to have the 2.8 is to stop action, especially indoors. You don't have a need for that it seems.

How big is your studio? If it is pretty large, you might be able to make use of the 70-300mm L IS, which at 300mm will blow out your backgrounds nicely! So, if you don't need f/2.8 to stop action and you want a lighter lens, perhaps the 70-300mm L IS is a good middle ground. It can also be used as a travel lens with your 24-105mm IS.

Depends also on your style...do you want parts of their face out of focus? Then the 2.8 is needed.

In a studio, you can move around no? What do you need that your 24-105mm f/4L IS cannot give you now? I am thinkin 105mm in a studio setting as long enough. If it is shallow depth of field you are after, you might be better served by a 50mm prime: Canon 50mm f/1.2L or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art. Just my two cents.

Kind regards,
Jason S.
skoobey said:
Indoor sports on monopod... great... I don't care about that :D

I shoot mostly hand held and portrait orientation, meaning I have to hold camera body and the lens for 3-6 hours a day in this position.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#20
What I need is longer lens. :D

I don't do shallow DOF, and my subject are often on the floor, on furniture or against the backdrop, so...

I know I want one of these two, and I hate changing lenses so 135 and 200 were not an option.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Cover Cap for removed tripod collar mount on 24-105 Z / 70-200 Z ?
Replies
2
Views
262
danfaz
danfaz
AlanF
Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm
Replies
40
Views
9K
Del Paso
D
T
Is this possible?
Replies
3
Views
1K
tothandris
T
Canon Rumors
Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?
Replies
32
Views
8K
ccming
ccming
axtstern
R7 comfort pack
Replies
14
Views
3K
AlanF
AlanF
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu