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

[lbloom]

I didn't see this in the list of previous topics, so I hope I'm not repeating someone else's question...

But I'm doing some event photography with a 5D mkii and need a 70-200mm zoom, but I'm wondering what the comparison is between the f/4 and f/2.8 models (regardless of IS). My events are quite well lit so lighting is not much of an issue. What I'm wondering is if either lens is sharper or has more/less distortion through the zoom range.

I like the f/4 for the price and weight! I've rented the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II and it was amazing (yet heavy). I've never used the f/4.

Any comparison in image quality other than aperture?

 

[well_dunno]

Other than weight and price, 2.8 II is superior in all aspects to my knowledge. This applies to the IS versions though.

All four are sharp lenses but I recall reading some order (starting with the sharpest)
f2.8 IS mk2
f4 IS
f2.8
f/4

you can find a comparison tool at:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

 

[avian]

quick search found me this similar post

4 pages of reading pleasure


http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1419.0.html

 

[briansquibb]

You have a 5D2 and the AF sensor works better with f/2.8 lens

 

[jabbott]

Here is my own comparison of the f/4L IS to the f/2.8L II IS USM... I ended up buying the f/2.8L II:

70-200mm f/4L IS
It is a very light lens for its size. The IS didn't seem as steady as the IS in the f/2.8, although both lenses have "4-stop IS". Perhaps it was because the lens was lighter than the f/2.8 and my hands were jittery. For the indoor test shots I took, the aperture used by the camera was f/4 (no surprise there) and the average ISO speed was 4000. The sharpness of this lens is amazing -- small details like price tags and other small print from 50 feet away can be read fairly clearly at 100% zoom. The drawbacks I noticed were color rendition was not always consistent (in one case it made some inkjet cartridge boxes with blue tops look unnaturally blue), and the relatively high ISO speed due to the f/4 aperture makes fine details less clear due to the resulting sensor noise.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
This lens has some girth. The aperture the camera used in all indoor test shots was f/2.8, with an average ISO speed of 2750. The photos all came out amazing. Excellent color rendition, insane detail and sharpness (not only can you read small print from 50 feet away at 100% zoom, it looks gorgeous too due to the lower ISO speed), and extremely solid image stabilization (when I held the shutter down, often times the viewfinder frame did not move *at all*). The lens supposedly weighs 3.3 lbs but it seemed really well balanced and does not feel much heavier than the 24-70mm f/2.8L in my hands.

 

[lbloom]

Thank you for the replies and for showing me that previous forum topic! Very helpful!