Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II

[DavidM]

Posts like this reek of laziness. I say do your own homework, give it some thought, then make up your own mind, instead of asking everyone else to do it for you.

Sorry TW, if you don't like it then don't read this topic or leave the forum. I can't ask the advice from CanonRumors users in which many know more than sales reps? It's posts like yours that reek irritation and frustration at the lack of brain used in posting a message like yours. Why? Because the very fact that I am doing research which lens to buy means that I am not "lazy" rather I'm doing all my homework before "just buying" a product.

Personally I'd like to thank all of you who are helping me in my decision. I mean, TW thinks there's not much difference between $1100 and $2000 however for some of us, we like to use our brain and think before we buy.

 

[Maui5150]

I am with DavidM. I have spend a lot of time reading reviews, researching, etc., and a lot of times it comes down to what people experience in real life that matter. Now in this case I think it comes down to what you can afford, at least for me, I can't see any reason other than weight where one would take the F4 IS. To some weight matters. But I know in my thread, the personal experiences helped big time and did shift me away to what I was thinking research wise... So I am very appreciative people took the time to chime in

 

[branden]

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is not an appropriate lens for indoor events shooting. (Use to own this, ended up selling it because it was too awkward -- there was always a better lens for any situation.)

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII is a better option, but not one I would take. (Rented this once -- weight and cost were not justified.)

When shooting indoor weddings, for my long lens I use a 135mm f/2L.

 

[K-amps]

When we consider the Human eye has has equivalent fstop range of f3.2 to f8.3 (assuming incoming light rays hitting the retina); are we surprised when the 70-200 f2.8 can give us very "eye pleasing" results...

 

[NotABunny]

For indoor weddings without a flash, even F2 and ISO 3200 is not enough many times, so don't base your purchase decision on that mere 1 stop of difference. If you use a flash then the difference doesn't matter anyway.

The F2.8 is good outside, with a far background, with good lighting, so that you can create a nicely blurred background. Indoors, you either need a flash or a sub-F2 lens.

 

[willrobb]

Hi David,

I think you won't regret spending a little more on the 70-200m f2.8L. It's very well built, will last you a long time and the f2.8 will be of great value in the low light.

At weddings/indoor events you won't be using it much for a walkabout to capture the action with (primes or medium range zoom will be good), but when someone is giving a speech and you need to get in close, you'll love the 70-200mm f2.8L. Here are some shots at ISO 100-3200 shot with this lens on a 7D and 5DmkII recently.

1st, 7D ISO 100 f5.6
2nd 5DmkII ISO 1000 f2.8
3rd 7D ISO 3200 f2.8
4th 5DmkII ISO 3200 f2.8
2nd

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Not what was asked for - but I've been astonished to see the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS going for far less than the $3100 it officially lists for - down to $2500 or so in some cases. If you need extra reach, look that up. On the downside, however, it is heavy and edge sharpness has been criticized (although it seems perfectly sharp throughout to me in actual use).

 

[K-amps]

How is this for motivation: B&H has it for $1974 now till Dec 2nd !! ;D

 

[JR]

Hi David,

sorry I joined this party late! The voting seem to be closed on your pole but like many others before me here I would vote for the 2.8 version. I totally understand your question because I asked myself that same question before buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II myself. Since you do some indoor shooting and wedding gigs, for sure the f2.8 will come in very handy for you.

Best of luck in your purchase and I hope you make lots of money out of those pictures you will take with your chosen lenses!

 

[wickidwombat]

can someone please explain (in detail) the weight factor of the f/2.8?

it looks like I am going to probably purchase the f/2.8 based on all of your help (thanks) however I am nervous about carrying this very heavy lens around.

please advise!

its fine, if you want the quality then you just gotta get used to it

 

[briansquibb]

The f/2.8 is a beast in size and weight compared to the f/4. I can hand-hold the f/4 all day, no problem. I couldn't fathom doing that with the f/2.8. If you use a tripod, the f/4 does not come with a collar but it really needs one to balance the camera if taking active photos. For example, I took a bunch of shots of big cats at the zoo with the f/4 without a collar and I found myself constantly using my left hand to balance the lens. I was exhausted afterward.

The f/4 is super sharp. I have yet to put the f/2.8 through its paces, so I cannot comment on its use in the field.

I dont find the f/2.8 very heavy and am quite comfortable with it on a 1D4 all day.

Suggest you use the rifle holding position with your left elbow resting against your chest. This is a very stable technique and takes little energy.

I would suggest using 2 flash, get the iso down to a max of 400, and on a crop use the 24-105 for the majority of photos. Indoors if space is tight then flash + a wide zoom will be perfect.

 

[wickidwombat]

The f/2.8 is a beast in size and weight compared to the f/4. I can hand-hold the f/4 all day, no problem. I couldn't fathom doing that with the f/2.8. If you use a tripod, the f/4 does not come with a collar but it really needs one to balance the camera if taking active photos. For example, I took a bunch of shots of big cats at the zoo with the f/4 without a collar and I found myself constantly using my left hand to balance the lens. I was exhausted afterward.

The f/4 is super sharp. I have yet to put the f/2.8 through its paces, so I cannot comment on its use in the field.

I dont find the f/2.8 very heavy and am quite comfortable with it on a 1D4 all day.

Suggest you use the rifle holding position with your left elbow resting against your chest. This is a very stable technique and takes little energy.

I would suggest using 2 flash, get the iso down to a max of 400, and on a crop use the 24-105 for the majority of photos. Indoors if space is tight then flash + a wide zoom will be perfect.

I agree with this technique, I also have taken the tripod foot off mine and have the lens just behind the focus ring rest on the heal of my left hand then i have easy access to the focus ring with my left hand fingers without disturbing the shot if i'm manually focusing.
And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.

 

[briansquibb]

I dont find the f/2.8 very heavy and am quite comfortable with it on a 1D4 all day.

Suggest you use the rifle holding position with your left elbow resting against your chest. This is a very stable technique and takes little energy.

I would suggest using 2 flash, get the iso down to a max of 400, and on a crop use the 24-105 for the majority of photos. Indoors if space is tight then flash + a wide zoom will be perfect.

I agree with this technique, I also have taken the tripod foot off mine and have the lens just behind the focus ring rest on the heal of my left hand then i have easy access to the focus ring with my left hand fingers without disturbing the shot if i'm manually focusing.
And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.

+1 - precisely - great position for panning too

 

[smirkypants]

The single most important lens in my armory.

I bet if you bought five, you could sell them in 8 months and make a little money. (warning: past performance may not be indicative of future results).

 

[wickidwombat]

The single most important lens in my armory.

I bet if you bought five, you could sell them in 8 months and make a little money. (warning: past performance may not be indicative of future results).

LOL

i know! I paid $2800 for my 2 copies but everything is more expensive here in aus

 

[Jim K]

I own and love the f/4 IS but I shoot outdoors. Since you are working indoors you will really need the f/2.8.

My 100-400 is a few ounces lighter than the f/2.8 II and I find that if I am holding it up for a while, waiting for a bird to give me the right head angle, it does get heavy. But that's why my second white lens was the f/4.

Considering the cost of the f/2.8 II you might be happier if you rented it for a few days to form your own opinion of how it is to work with.

 

[gmrza]

I agree with this technique, I also have taken the tripod foot off mine and have the lens just behind the focus ring rest on the heal of my left hand then i have easy access to the focus ring with my left hand fingers without disturbing the shot if i'm manually focusing.
And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.

I agree on removing the tripod mount. For hand-held shooting my wife and I both find it more comfortable without.

I think also that the weight should not be too much of a concern. Even my wife (who used to complain bitterly about heavy cameras) is happy to shoot all day with the f/2.8.

 

[wickidwombat]

I own and love the f/4 IS but I shoot outdoors. Since you are working indoors you will really need the f/2.8.

My 100-400 is a few ounces lighter than the f/2.8 II and I find that if I am holding it up for a while, waiting for a bird to give me the right head angle, it does get heavy. But that's why my second white lens was the f/4.

Considering the cost of the f/2.8 II you might be happier if you rented it for a few days to form your own opinion of how it is to work with.

I have the 28-300 similar style and while on paper its not alot heavier than the 70-200 it felt significantly heavier particularly when at full extension because all that weight is so much further forward of the camera putting more downward force on your supporting arm. the 70-200 feels like a featherweight by comparison

 

[daveheinzel]

You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.

Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.

 

[wickidwombat]

You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.

Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.

I would have cried like a little girl :'(