70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS

[bycostello]

how much cash you got? if you can afford it then sure why not....

 

[Zen]

I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D

 

[StudentOfLight]

One last thought. Got home tonite and unboxed my new lens. Just playing with this indoors in existing light, I am "wowed" by the clarity. The IS is virtually silent. At 2.8, hand-held at 200mm with long exposures, I am impressed. And the narrow DOF! I still plan to hold on to the f/4 for a while.

OK, I am done now. But, I am really glad I went for it. Oh, and the "pinch" lenscap ain't so bad either.

Congrats.

P.S. centre-pinch FTW!

 

[StudentOfLight]

I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait. I find this way for flexible for my purposes.

Another option for you can be Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens. I don't own it but the reviews are pretty good. And it includes 6(!) years of manufacturer's warranty and it's $769 on B&H.

I know th OP has already made his purchase so this is just for others' interest... The Tamron is a very capable lens which offers similar IQ to the Canon 70-200mm IS II on the wide end but at "200mm" it is not that sharp when shooting at f/2.8. I've found that the focal range is somewhat overstated, and the Tamron is more like 70-190mm. There are also other shortcomings like no AF-range-limit switches and VC is simply on or off. Although there are no IS-variations like on the Canon system, I don't find it such a problem. Tamron's VC system seems to work fine for my needs.

Anyway, if you are on a budget then I have no hesitation in recommending the Tamron, as it is good value for money and is backed by a solid warranty, but don't believe sites like DXOmark that say it is superior to the Canon 2.8 IS-II it simply isn't.

 

[rs]

but don't believe sites like DXOmark

Does anyone? ;D

 

[sunnyVan]

I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D

Never heard of that. Even if true, the price must be outrageous.

 

[J.R.]

I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

I think you are approaching this issue in the wrong order. The right question is, what is it that this lens is not great at? Unless there are any major issues that need a fix, an update is extremely unlikely. The 70-200 f/4L IS is an extremely popular lens which sells very well.

 

[Zen]

Thanks Sunny and JR for your replies.

I have no complaints about the 2.8. When I got it, I didn't think I would need the 4, so sold it. But now, because of the weight of the 2.8, I wish I had not sold the smaller one. So I was trying to decide if I should replace the one I sold with a current copy or wait for a possible upgrade. But I liked the clarity and sharpness of the 4, so I've decided to just go ahead and get the current one. I plan to keep my 2.8 as well, using it when I can easily use my tripod, but going with the f4 for walking around.

My only problem with the 2.8 is that it is too heavy to carry easily . . .

Thanks again for sharing your opinions.

Zen ;D

 

[Hector1970]

I own the 2.8 II but have used the F4.
Both are great. Of all my lens I think the 2.8 is the best .
It's absolutely brilliant for sports and for portraits.
The F4 is way lighter and cheaper and very very good. You will love it but maybe crave the 2.8
The 2.8 will either give you big muscles or a repetitive strain injury.
But it's wonderful and even after 2 years it hasn't lost its appeal .
I have the 85mm II and I wouldn't rate it anywhere near as good.
It's too tricky at times whereas the 70-200mm always comes up trumps.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I delayed and tried the f/2.8 twice before finally switching. Eventually, I sold the f/4 IS because it wasn't being used. I did it only because I managed to get the f/2.8 version for $1600.

I do quite a bit of very low light shooting where ISO 12800 and higher is often needed at f/2.8, so now my primes are getting little use.

 

[J.R.]

My only problem with the 2.8 is that it is too heavy to carry easily . . .

Carrying it for a couple of hours is perfectly fine for me. It's for the longer treks that I have retained the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

 

[nc0b]

From an L standpoint, I started with the f/2.8 but have both now. I traded my 70-300mm non-L plus cash for the f/4. If I could only have one, no question I pick the f/2.8. If hiking 5 miles or less, the size & weight of the f/2.8 has not been a problem. (Age 66). Unlike another post, I find the AF speed of the 2.8 significantly faster. Both lenses work well with the 1.4X TC III, but of course the 2X TC only works with the 2.8 on most bodies. For BIF the 400mm f/5.6 is drastically better at maintaining focus lock. On the other hand for more general wildlife, the 2X TC is ok, and maintains IS and a close minimum focus distance.

 

[Don Haines]

I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D

There are a lot of lenses which need updating long before a 70-200F4 IS is considered. The IQ is almost as good as the F2.8 version and it is sharper than several primes..... This is one of the best price/performance lenses out there from anyone. It is possible to improve on it, but not by very much. I would not wait around for a version 2 of the lens as you will probably be waiting for ten or more years....

 

[clartephoto]

I started with the 70-200 f/4L IS. I had to get it calibrated and took me some time getting used to it, but after that it was an absolute workhorse - remarkable lens.

I then got a 200 f/2L IS - the difference at 200mm between f/2 and f/4 is night and day.

I got tired of carrying the 200 f/2L IS on hikes and trips etc. so I decided to get a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

But unfortunately, I was disappointed with the 2.8 IS II. I thought it would be a "halfway point" between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 200 f/2L IS, but unfortunately the reality was the 200 f/2L IS at f/4 has more smoother backgrounds than the 70-200 f/2.8 does at f/2.8!

Consequently, in my mind now it feels like I have a 70-200 f/4L IS II and a 70-200 f/3.5L IS II.

Silly I know but that's what it feels like...

 

[J.R.]

But unfortunately, I was disappointed with the 2.8 IS II. I thought it would be a "halfway point" between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 200 f/2L IS, but unfortunately the reality was the 200 f/2L IS at f/4 has more smoother backgrounds than the 70-200 f/2.8 does at f/2.8!

Bokeh is not really the strongest point of the 70-200 2.8 II. It can get real nervous under some conditions.

I believe there always are some compromises in the design of zoom lenses. Yes even in excellent lenses such as the 70-200 II.