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

[shivac77]

Hi Friends,

I am in little bit dilemma to but 70-200 F 2.8 IS and its coming with good discounted price on several web sites.
But I currently own 70-200mm F4 IS. Also I am a hobbyist and not professional. Is it worth for me when I upgrade, with respective to lens quality and the price I am spending on F2.8? Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Thanks In Adv,
Shiv

 

[Loswr]

Real-world image quality is not very different, the slight edge the f/2.8 has in the lab is hard to detect in normal shooting.

The real question is, do you need f/2.8? If you are shooting action in low light, or shooting a lot of portraits, then it is certainly quite useful. Besides the cost, it is a substantially larger and heavier lens.

 

[Ruined]

Hi Friends,

I am in little bit dilemma to but 70-200 F 2.8 IS and its coming with good discounted price on several web sites.
But I currently own 70-200mm F4 IS. Also I am a hobbyist and not professional. Is it worth for me when I upgrade, with respective to lens quality and the price I am spending on F2.8? Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Thanks In Adv,
Shiv

Well, it really depends on what you will use it for...

The f/2.8's faster aperture means that you can get thinner depth of field, resulting in more of that background blur many like. It is also better for low light and fast action.

But, the f/2.8 is *much* heavier than the f/4, to the extent it may be uncomfortable to use for some. If you were hiking, for instance, I would not recommend the f/2.8 unless you needed the utmost quality. On the other hand, if you liked to shoot indoor sports and at weddings a lot, then the 2.8 is worth it IMO.

There is no doubt the f/2.8 has the clear edge, the question is whether the times you'd use it would necessitate the extra weight and size that comes with it. If you are just using it for a hobby and just want a telephoto zoom with no other real stipulations, you'll probably like the f/4 better.

Personally, I like to recommend the 70-300/f4-5.6L for casual use and the 70-200/f2.8L for more serious use. The former is lighter and smaller plus has more reach, while the latter is faster but heavier. If you can afford both that's a sweet combo! The 70-200/f4 is a bit lighter and faster than the 70-300 but it is also longer and has less range.

 

[sunnyVan]

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.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Firstly, I have to say I am a hobbyist. I have owned the 70-200mm F4L IS and currently own the 70-200mm f2.8L II.
If you shoot portraits, dim light and fast action then go for the f2.8 version, because of bokeh, large aperture and AF speed but, otherwise I suggest going to the 70-200 f4 IS instead. f4 is lighter and is as sharp as the f2.8 version and on top you'll save some big $$.

 

[sdsr]

What do you mainly want to use it for? If you need to freeze action in lower light, keep noise down in lower light, or want focus to be as shallow as possible for any given focal length, you're better off with 2.8. Otherwise there's little, if any, discernible difference in image quality; but there's a vast difference in weight and size (I would hate to carry around the 2.8 all day).

Note, too, that while the 2.8 has shallower focus at any given focal length, it doesn't always have the most attractive bokeh (depending on what's in the background and how far the subject is from it); and that you can reduce depth of focus by other means of that's what you want - e.g. on the 70-200 f/4, use a longer focal length and/or get closer. And if you're willing to try that, you may want to consider an alternative lens: For instance, depending on relative distances etc. you can get superb isolation, background blur and bokeh by using the 70-300L at the longer end of its range where it gets no faster than 5.6. Of course, the framing and composition etc. won't be the same, and this isn't a good solution for freezing action, but depending on what you want to do this may be worth considering too - it may even be preferable (esp. if your camera is FF).

 

[fegari]

I have both and as many have, I've agonized over the issue before getting the 2.8II. IQ is pretty much the same on both, obviously from F4 onwards and obvioulsly you get more flexibility with the 2.8 for the reasons explained above. That extra stop is a great thing to have, whatever high ISO cameras exist now, it is always a plus.

Asuming money is not a big driver in the desicion, this was my rationale:

If you consider/want to be able to shoot (also) some wildlife without going for a dedicated lens, get the 2.8 that can use the 1.4 and 2x extenders, big versatility value here and IQ won't dissapoint, even with the 2x it is more than acceptable with good light. You get basically a 70-400 (f2.8 - f5.6)

If portrait is your thing, I'd say get the 2.8II, here I think there is a real visible differnce btw f4 and f2.8


If you value more the size and weight, then the F4. Significant weight difference here and the F4 is still more than usable with the 1.4x by the way. Being limited to 280mm in such case you get "only" a 70-280 (f4 - 5.6)


In my case, I value more the possibility of putting the 2x extender whenever I need to than the weight penalty while travelling, therefore I'm selling the F4. FInally, the 2.8 comes with the tripod mount ring for free, a night and day change whenever you use the tripod, logically.

Good luck with teh choice!

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I like to recommend the 70-300/f4-5.6L for casual use and the 70-200/f2.8L for more serious use. The former is lighter and smaller plus has more reach, while the latter is faster but heavier. If you can afford both that's a sweet combo! The 70-200/f4 is a bit lighter and faster than the 70-300 but it is also longer and has less range.

+1 I have both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 70-300L, I use the former for portraits and events and the latter for travel and family outings.

 

[JPAZ]

FWIW, I've had the f/4 is for a while (years) and it is absolutely great. My f/2.8 ii arrives today (it is on the FedEx truck). My friend used my f/4 in 2010 when we were on a trip together, then went home and bought a 2.8. She still blames me for starting her on the slippery slope of lens purchases.

Recently, while in Denali, she had her 20-200 f/2.8ii with her and I tried her lens. Even though it is bigger and heavier than it's little brother, the added speed and hence the ability to add a TC if needed while still preserving pretty quick focusing won me over. 'nuff said, that started the urge (?need) to get one and the recent "double dip" exceeded the price threshold I'd set for myself.

My budget allows for the Bill Me Later payments over 6 months and the f/4 is long paid for. For now, I m keeping both. When I travel and trek, weight can add up. If I find the new one being used and the old one gathering dust, I'll sell it then. I don't see the 70-200 f/4 IS losing value, it is still a wonderful lens.

 

[Ruined]

FWIW, I've had the f/4 is for a while (years) and it is absolutely great. My f/2.8 ii arrives today (it is on the FedEx truck). My friend used my f/4 in 2010 when we were on a trip together, then went home and bought a 2.8. She still blames me for starting her on the slippery slope of lens purchases.

Recently, while in Denali, she had her 20-200 f/2.8ii with her and I tried her lens. Even though it is bigger and heavier than it's little brother, the added speed and hence the ability to add a TC if needed while still preserving pretty quick focusing won me over. 'nuff said, that started the urge (?need) to get one and the recent "double dip" exceeded the price threshold I'd set for myself.

My budget allows for the Bill Me Later payments over 6 months and the f/4 is long paid for. For now, I m keeping both. When I travel and trek, weight can add up. If I find the new one being used and the old one gathering dust, I'll sell it then. I don't see the 70-200 f/4 IS losing value, it is still a wonderful lens.

I agree one should have a lighter backup telephoto to the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM, because that lens might be too heavy for travelling or hiking. Some good options include the long but light 70-200 f/4L IS USM, or the short but medium weight 70-300/f4-5.6L IS USM. Hopefully in 2014 they will update the 70-300 non-L with a design comparable to the L's optics (or at least up to par with the 55-250 STM) so we can have both short and light - perfect for travel... The current ones (both non-L IS and DO IS) are optically pretty terrible over 200mm.

 

[keithfullermusic]

i don't own either, but i've rented the 70-200 2.8 ii multiple times. all i can say is that when i use that bad boy, almost all of my shots are at 2.8, and god lord they are amazing. granted, i use it for weddings, so i'm using it in low light/high movement situations, so i need the fastest shutter speed i can get. i have a 5d3, and i don't mind pushing the ISO up to 6400, but smaller than 2.8 is still usually too slow.

the 2.8 version is my favorite lens that i have ever used. the sharpness, contrast, colors, bokeh, and focal length make it an incredible lens. for me personally i wouldn't have much use for the f/4 version, but if the quality is the same as the 2.8, if you don't need 2.8, and price is an issue, then go for the f/4.

 

[Arctic Photo]

I've never triwd the f/4, but I've understood it's a very good lens as other members arw saying here. But the f/2.8 is something special. It's what lenses are about, it has it all. Unfortunately also a hefty price tag and weight, but if you can overcome that I'd recommend it and congratulate you. It makes me happy every time I use it and it never lets me down.

 

[mackguyver]

I've owned both and the image quality is pretty much even in real-world use. The IS seems a bit better in the 2.8 and the build quality of both is great, but whereas the 4 feels tough, the 2.8 feels like it could survive battle. The 2.8 is MUCH bigger than the 4 and much more conspicuous. It takes up a surprising amount of room in your bag as well. The 2.8 comes with a tripod ring, the 4 does not.

If you value shoot portraits, sports, or wildlife in low/poor light, the 2.8 is worth the added cost, size, and weight. If you primarily shoot landscapes or other photos at f/8 or above, carry gear long distances, value being relatively discrete, the 4 is probably better.

When I picked up the 2.8, I thought I'd hang onto my 4, but after it collected dust for a few months, I sold it. For me the size and weight weren't deal breakers, but each person has their own needs.

 

[InterMurph]

Don't forget about focus speed.

I owned a f/4 version, and used it for youth sports. I sold it and bought the f/2.8 version, and its improved focus speed has made all the difference.

Its extra weight has also made a different; it's hard to use for an hour straight. But I think it's definitely worth it.

 

[mackguyver]

Don't forget about focus speed.

I owned a f/4 version, and used it for youth sports. I sold it and bought the f/2.8 version, and its improved focus speed has made all the difference.

Its extra weight has also made a different; it's hard to use for an hour straight. But I think it's definitely worth it.

I think that may have more to do with the body it's used on - I haven't noticed much difference at all in AF performance, other than low light level work. Maybe others can share their experiences, but on my 5DII and 5DIII, I didn't notice much if any difference.

 

[ashmadux]

the 2.8 version is my favorite lens that i have ever used.

The TRUTH right there

 

[ksagomonyants]

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.

+1. You can also get 100 f2.8L Macro instead of 135 f2 if you need image stabilization.

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.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I used the 4 for a couple of years and it's a great lens. Loved it.

But - there came a point where I needed that extra stop and it was time to step up. Too many events I was shooting called for a telephoto lens indoors. Struggled with ISO at f4 (on 1.6x)...traded up to the 2.8 and don't regret it one bit. In fact, that is one of my most frequently used lenses especially now with an FF camera. Yes, the extra weight can be burdensome (even somewhat painful at times) but when I look at the pics afterward, I know that it was totally worth it!

 

[JPAZ]

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.

 

[K-amps]

It is not only about the length, or the Aperture or the sharpness or any other static spec.... rather the fact that shots taken with the 70-200 F2.8 mk.II, are just drop dead gorgeous.... instantly your shots are just better. hard to explain...

I am a hobbyist myself... and not a rich man, but after knowing what I know about the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, I'd be ok paying $4000 for this lens if I had to do it over again... (can't say that about my 24-70 f.2.8 mk.ii)...

The bokeh is great, the contrast is great, the colors palpable, the shots breathtaking...

How will you put a price one that?