Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L vs. Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS

[pulseimages]

I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L lens that I have had for a while now and I used to be able to hand hold the sucker with no problems as far as getting sharp images. Call it getting older but I really can't do it anymore and I am missing a lot of shots due to the lack of IS. I know I could use a mono or tripod but that's kind of defeating the purpose of being agile.

I don't have the funds to spend on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens so the next best thing would be the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. Would it be a bad thing to sell my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L lens and use the funds towards the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS? Is there things my 2.8 L can do better than the 4 L IS version?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Menace]

Have a look at your Exit data to work out percentage of shots at f2.8 - if it's a large percentage then yes you are likely to miss the wider aperture.

 

[tomscott]

Have you tried setting your camera on auto ISO and then a minimum shutter speed on one of the C modes on you camera? So the camera will never go below a certain shutter speed.

Problem almost solved.

What camera do you use? as auto ISO may degrade IQ so worth setting a maximum ISO range that you are comfortable with I have my 5DMKIII set to 100-6400ISO because I feel that range is perfectly usable. Also what sorts of images do you shoot? Is it action? or general?

If general then F2.8 isn't overly helpful unless you really like the look, but is a pain to lug around if your always shooting F5.6-11 for decent depth of field. At the same time I don't mind lugging the weight.

Also if your shooting crop remember F2.8 is more like F4.5 so if you buy the F4 the image will look like a F6.3 (full frame equivalent) so it may be harder to isolate your subject. If on full frame there won't be an issue, F4 gives plenty of subject isolation especially at 200mm.

Do you follow the focal length shutter speed rule? 200mm above 1/200s? or even double it to ensure? As a wedding photographer I was struggling with my 70-200mm but only in low light at 1/30-1/50th and at 200mm its impossible to get clean shots. So for me the upgrade is worth it.

I have just gone from the 70-200mm F2.8 L non IS to the MKII, tbh the IQ is nearly identical but the IS is amazing but it is heavier. The other option is to go to the 70-200mm MKI IS can buy these pre owned for £1000 great choice although not as sharp as the original 70-200mm F2.8.

Another thing to bare in mind is that the IS makes shooting a better experience as the IS stabilises the view finder so at 200mm can be a lot easier to nail focus.

Hope that helps!

 

[pulseimages]

I shoot with a 6D and 40D. I don't shoot action, more fine art and landscapes so I really don't shoot wide open at 2.8.

 

[mackguyver]

I shoot with a 6D and 40D. I don't shoot action, more fine art and landscapes so I really don't shoot wide open at 2.8.

You'll love the 70-200 f/4 IS, then. It's an amazing lens and while I upgraded to the 2.8 IS II, I miss the lightweight and small size. If f/4 is fast enough, you can't go wrong with it.

 

[YuengLinger]

The 2.8 II IS is a heavy sucka. Sometimes feels like an albatross. But for portraits, a must.

On the other hand, friends who don't photograph people love the lightness, size, and performance of the f/4 version, ease of handling which I definitely envy.

 

[Khalai]

The 2.8 II IS is a heavy sucka.

+1x10e6 Don't buy this lens if you like your shoulders and back (lugging this white heavy marvelous beast is quite a recipe for sore neck, nape and shoulder )

 

[e17paul]

I shoot with a 6D and 40D. I don't shoot action, more fine art and landscapes so I really don't shoot wide open at 2.8.

You'll love the 70-200 f/4 IS, then. It's an amazing lens and while I upgraded to the 2.8 IS II, I miss the lightweight and small size. If f/4 is fast enough, you can't go wrong with it.

+1
If needing depth of field, then 2.8 is no benefit. I tried the f/4 IS and loved it. However I also tried the heavier 70-300L IS and found it better handheld than the 70-200/4. That's another option to consider. All get excellent reviews.

 

[Don Haines]

I hike a lot and for reasons of size and weight decided on the F4 IS version. Short of putting it on an optical test bed, the IQ is indistinguishable from the F2.8IS and is considerably smaller and lighter.

You will find it to marginally worse than the F2.8 at the wide end and marginally better at the long end, but short of using it on calibrated targets or a test bench, I doubt you could detect any real difference.

 

[brad-man]

Agree with all responses. The sharpness of the f/4L IS vs 2.8 ll is pretty much a wash (I have both). It sounds like you have no need for speed/low light/depth of field and the f/4 is soooo much easier to carry, both in size and weight. It truly is a joy to use as well as very reasonably priced.

 

[AlanF]

As usual, some don't read the original posting. The OP has the the Mk 1 200mm f/2.8 L, not the II with IS. The Mk 1 lens is much poorer optically than the II IS at 200mm. You have to stop it down to f/4 to get it as sharp as the 200mm f/4 L IS. Whereas there is a good case for the 200mm f/2.8 II IS, the f/4 IS beats the older lens hands down.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

I shoot with a 6D and 40D. I don't shoot action, more fine art and landscapes so I really don't shoot wide open at 2.8.

You'll love the 70-200 f/4 IS, then. It's an amazing lens and while I upgraded to the 2.8 IS II, I miss the lightweight and small size. If f/4 is fast enough, you can't go wrong with it.

Ditto this.

 

[Colonel H]

I have owned both and shot them on a 7D. Both have great image quality. Unless you are doing shots in low light the f/4 version will serve you well. I wished my finances were such that I could have kept the f/4 but I love the f/2.8L II. good luck with whichever you choose.

 

[JPAZ]

The f/4 is was my first L. Even though I have a 2.8 ii, I won't part with the 4. Just this weekend on a quick trip, I took the 2.8 out of my bag and carried the 4 instead to lighten the load. It is a great lens unless you actually need the 2.8.