EF 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-200 F2.8 L

[AECM]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

 

[Loswr]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

I find that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II balances quite well on my gripped bodies - but the combo is definitely not light.

In terms of IQ, assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS has a *very* slight edge, so slight it's unlikely to make any difference in real-world use. So, the trade off is IS and lighter/smaller vs. a stop of light. If you need the extra stop, you need it. If not, the f/4 IS version is great.

 

[AECM]

Hello again! Today i had the opportunity of taking some photos with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM and its an excellent lenses i love the image quality, the colors... I also felt on my arms the weight of the lenses, and to balance it was a bit hard because i couldn't stand still, i think that with a bigger body it could had been easier to balance. Know i would like to try the EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, i think that the image quality, sharpness and colors would be similar ore even better than the EF 70 200 f2.8 L USM??

I find that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II balances quite well on my gripped bodies - but the combo is definitely not light.

In terms of IQ, assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS, the 70-200mm f/4L IS has a *very* slight edge, so slight it's unlikely to make any difference in real-world use. So, the trade off is IS and lighter/smaller vs. a stop of light. If you need the extra stop, you need it. If not, the f/4 IS version is great.

Yes i was referring to the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS. If tomorrow i was buying a Canon 70-200 L series lenses i would buy the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM because at this time i don't really need the f/2.8 and from what i was reading the 70 200 f/4 IS is a very good material.
But now i have other doubts i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?

 

[Loswr]

i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?

Not quite. The IQ of the two lenses is essentially equivalent, both excellent and just tiny bit less than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. However, the 70-300 L is only f/4 until just over 100mm. Here's the breakdown:

70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6

So, basically you're trading 100mm for 1/3 - 2/3 stop of light over most of the overlapping focal range. The 70-200 f/4L IS can also take a 1.4x TC (with an IQ hit, or a 2x with a bigger hit and loss of AF on non-1-series bodies). A variable aperture is a bit of a pain if you shoot in M mode, since you need to adjust exposure as you zoom
(in Av or Tv the camera compensates). The 70-300 L is also a bit more expensive. Having said that, of the two, I'd probably choose the 70-300 L for the extra 100mm.

 

[scottkinfw]

I have been having that problem with my 50D and a couple of L lenses. I sent the camera and lenses in to get looked at, so hopefully that may remedy the problem. If your lens is under warranty, you may want to consider that too. Of course, I am waiting to see if the problem is resolved. Just an idea.

sek

Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good... Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.

Wait, are you talking about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

I've been sorely disappointed time after time by this lens; grainy and low-res compared to pretty much every other lens in my collection

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

I'm definitely in the market for a higher quality telephoto.

 

[AECM]

i was reading the review of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM By Craig B / Canon Rumors Guy and he say that in his opinion the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM is as sharp as the 70 200 f/4 L IS USM so my question his can the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be a sort of 70 200 f/4 L IS with an f/4 from 70 to 200 mm and also have an extra 100mm with f/5.6? Can the general image quality of the 70 300 f/4-5.6 L be close to that of the 70 200 f/4 L IS?

Not quite. The IQ of the two lenses is essentially equivalent, both excellent and just tiny bit less than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. However, the 70-300 L is only f/4 until just over 100mm. Here's the breakdown:

70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6

So, basically you're trading 100mm for 1/3 - 2/3 stop of light over most of the overlapping focal range. The 70-200 f/4L IS can also take a 1.4x TC (with an IQ hit, or a 2x with a bigger hit and loss of AF on non-1-series bodies). A variable aperture is a bit of a pain if you shoot in M mode, since you need to adjust exposure as you zoom
(in Av or Tv the camera compensates). The 70-300 L is also a bit more expensive. Having said that, of the two, I'd probably choose the 70-300 L for the extra 100mm.

In terms of general image quality how would you rank this 3 lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8 L USM (non IS version); EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM; EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM?

 

[Loswr]

Honestly, I wouldn't rank order them. For all practical purposes, the overall IQ is equal among the three. One may be very slightly better at 70mm, another very slightly better at 200mm, yet another improves slightly more when you stop down a bit, etc., but overall, it's a wash - they're all excellent.

So, other factors need to drive the decision. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need an extra 100mm? Is 2/3 stop important? Do you need IS? Do you have the extra $300. How about size/weight? Do you need weather sealing (the 2.8 non-IS isn't sealed)? Those are the questions you need to answer, since IQ doesn't differentiate those 3 lenses.

 

[AECM]

Honestly, I wouldn't rank order them. For all practical purposes, the overall IQ is equal among the three. One may be very slightly better at 70mm, another very slightly better at 200mm, yet another improves slightly more when you stop down a bit, etc., but overall, it's a wash - they're all excellent.

So, other factors need to drive the decision. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need an extra 100mm? Is 2/3 stop important? Do you need IS? Do you have the extra $300. How about size/weight? Do you need weather sealing (the 2.8 non-IS isn't sealed)? Those are the questions you need to answer, since IQ doesn't differentiate those 3 lenses.

I don't need f/2.8 but the IS and the weather sealing can be a big advantage and makes the lenses more practical, so IS and weather sealing in.
I was aiming for the EF 70 200 f/4 L IS USM but know that i started to reed more about the EF 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM i have doubts about what to chose, if i had the extra 100mm i would use them for sure and if the image quality is identical in this to lenses even more points goes to the EF 70 300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM. In terms of price the difference is about €250 so that wouldn't be a big issue and the EF 70 3 f/4-5.6 L IS USM tends to be more practical due to its length when full retracted and the difference in weight is about 290g for the extra 100mm so that's not a big problem either.