Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

[briansquibb]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.

Half the weight of the OP 300 f/2.8

So no no no

You must practice by lifting the 600 f/4 L IS as if is a kind of weight! So the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will feel light comparatively

I regularly have a 3 hour session with the 200 f/2, so the 70-200 f/2.8 is an easy walkabout lens

 

[tron]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no

Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.

Half the weight of the OP 300 f/2.8

So no no no

You must practice by lifting the 600 f/4 L IS as if is a kind of weight! So the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will feel light comparatively

I regularly have a 3 hour session with the 200 f/2, so the 70-200 f/2.8 is an easy walkabout lens

;D

 

[dlleno]

one has to decide if wider apertures are a must, and when they are a "must" the additional weight just doesn't matter. Sure the f/2.8 is heavier but for me I wouldn't be without it. There are two use cases that are important to me:

1. The f/4 aperture will produce on the order of 50% wider DOF than f/2.8, at least on a 1.6x crop camera, and produces better background blurr. I find that in actual practice I use f/2.8 quite a bit just for that reason, not to mention the extra stop of light.

2. the f/2.8 takes a 1.4x TC well, and the resultant 280mm f/4 is quite good.

 

[infared]

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11

Check out SLR Gear reviews on these lenses. Take a look at the Blur Charts that represent IQ.
Surprisingly the f4 lens has slightly better IQ, but with much less weight. Unless you need f2.8... I wouldn't upgrade at all.

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is. The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.

That's NOT TRUE. I used both and 2.8 IS II is sharper.

Have you ever shoot with f2.8? or compared to f4 before?

Dylan

I can say this..I owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. After reading the reviews...I sold it and bought the II model. THe II is soooooooooooooooooo sharp I am completely WOW'ED every time I use the lens. I think that this lens is like having primes. It is AMAZING! Couple that with increased light gathering and faster AF with improved IS....it certainly is worth the money. I was very happy that I made the trade...I do not mind this size and weight because all of the increased performance.

 

[Jamesy]

I own the F4 IS and agree that the 2.8 II is a killer lens. For the few days I had it, it was amazing. That said, the weight trade-off between the F4 and the F2.8 has me leaning towards the F4. IMHO, there is no question the F2.8 is better all around but at a cost, in this case $$$ and weight and bulk.

 

[ScottyP]

Go to The Digital Picture, and look in "TOOLS" and do a lens comparison for sharpness. It is a really interesting time-suck educational resource. You can compare ISO 12233 shots side-by-side with LOTS of different lenses, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, LensBaby, etc.. You can adjust the aperature and the focal length on both lenses you are comparing. You can even compare lenses using the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, though it is not readily apparent how to do it. Just jack the focal distance beyond the lens's native length, and you automatically get to test out the teleconverters!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx

Hopefully this does not get me banned on CR or anything (ha).

 

[Jamesy]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx

OT but I thought I would thank ScottP for the link above - Amazing little tool. It solved a question I had between my 70-200 F4 IS and my 24-105 F4 IS. I checked both at F4/5.6/8,0 and 70mm and the 70-200 is markedly sharper at these apertures. I shot with the 17-55 on my 40D for four years and somehow I am finding the 24-105 a little soft in comparison. I have not done any micro adjustment, maybe I should. I am considering having Canon look at it when I send in the5D3 to fix the light leak issue.

 

[birtembuk]

Like you, it took me some time before final decision between the both. Weight was my issue too. The f/2.8 is a killer lens. A boon. Superlative stuff. Apart from the bigger whites, one of the few that makes you stick w/ Canon forever. Actually, I don't get it when people say that one more f stop can be compensated by one more iso. Then, why not go for 5.6 since iso can be bumped up more and more these days ? Doesn't makes sense to me. It's not only more light, it's about flexibility, oof, beauty and more. Actually, I almost only shoot at 2.8 and this baby is razor sharp at 2.8 across the whole focal and picture. As for weight, compared with 300 it's a breeze. Besides, weight gives more momentum and somehow helps stabilize the grip. For what this lens gives me, the weight doesn't bother me at all. Add to that a 1.4X for only f4 and it's absolute winner. You'd have to cut my hand to snatch it from me !

If you still hesitate, just tell yourself that 2.8 and 4 have the same price per kg...

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Having had both lenses (well, used to have the 4, traded up to the 2.8 which I have now), I find both equally sharp/impressive. As to which one you should go for, well, it depends on your use. I upgraded mine since I found myself using it more indoors than out, shooting special events and the like. With the 60D, I found I was really reaching the limits of the F4 model indoors (I hate using flash) so once I had the $$, I decided to trade it in for the 2.8 version. Don't regret the move one bit. Pros: same high level of performance, extra stop, quieter IS operation; Cons: extra weight & bulk (arm hurts after shooting continuously for an hour), price

Ultimately for outdoor tele shooting I got myself the 70-300L, which effectively replaced what I used to use the 70-200 f4 for. Much lighter than the 2.8 and has 100mm extra reach so it's great for outdoor daytime shooting when I don't want (or need) to carry around the extra weight.

 

[ScottyP]

Double the weight matters a lot in 747's or locomotives. In lenses, they are relevant but not nearly so much so.
What matters is your use. If you ever want to shoot someone's kids playing indoor basketball/volleyball/etc., the f/4 will be a hinderance.
If you shoot in big halls/wedding reception places indoors, you may find f/4 a problem.
If you hate artificial lighting, f/4 could be a hassle.


If none of these things apply, then it will be rare that you will need to shoot basic indoor shots at @200mm w/o added lighting.

 

[SteenerMe]

The 70-200IS II is the best lens ive ever used. If you want the absolute best then thats where its at. When comparing pics on dpreview type sites you must remember that those are under ideal conditions. I dont know about you but when i shoot the conditions are anything but ideal. This being said the 2.8Is II gives me the most consistant results even in the hardest situations. The weight you get used to, but the high amount of keepers never gets old to me. If you can afford it get it. You have onebof the best bodys, why not pair it with the best glass. With the new af tracking and IS on the lens you can freeze anything sharp.

 

[Michael_pfh]

I upgraded from 70-200 F4L IS USM to 70-200 F2.8L IS USM II 1.5 years ago and have not regretted it. I did like the F4 version a lot for its comparably light weight and compact size but I do value the extra stop more. Both lenses are among the sharpest zooms I have used.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11

Check out SLR Gear reviews on these lenses. Take a look at the Blur Charts that represent IQ.
Surprisingly the f4 lens has slightly better IQ, but with much less weight. Unless you need f2.8... I wouldn't upgrade at all.

Those links are to the f/2.8 IS USM mk 1, and the mk 2 should be optically superior to the mk 1.

Anyway, the f/4 IS USM is, from experience, an excellent lens. The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.

A tripod gets a similar response. One time I shot a building next to occupy someplace, and one of the protesters just stood up in front of the camera and started preaching. Telling her I was sent there to shoot for a news segment about construction code violations made her leave so fast I didn't have to make up any more details.

 

[candyman]

The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.

+1
That happened to me as well. Asking for what sportsmagazine I work. What a disappointment to them when I told them the photo's will not show up in any magazine. LOL

 

[GuyF]

All,

Many thanks for all the replies. It just underlines what a terrific resource this forum is - post a query in the evening and next morning there are 3 pages of opinions! Plus nobody resorted to name calling!

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

 

[Gothmoth]

I may have the wrong 2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS. There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.

well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible.

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

the main advantage of the f4 is weight.

i shoot landscapes with my 70-200 f4 most of the time (means hiking and travelling)
i rarely ever want to use the 70-200 lens at something faster then f5.6.

when i want to do portraits or something with a narrow DOF i use my fast prime lenses (85mm f1.2 or 135 f2).

70-200 f4 + 85mm f1.2 = 1785g in my kata backpack
70-200 f2.8 II + 85mm f1.2 = 2515g in my kata backpack

that´s why i have the 70-200mm f4 and not the f2.8.
it´s lightweight and fits my needs... your mileage may vary.

the 70-200 f2.8 II is sure a fantastic allrounder.
and the corner sharpness is impressive.

 

[Greatland]

If you are primarily an outdoor shooter the f4 should suffice. If you are shooting indoor, or in low light, the decision to go with the 2.8 is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion. Indoor sports photographers all have this lens and there is a reason. Plus the version II is a sharper and better lense, period....of course cost and weight are a lot different as well.

 

[Menace]

"So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result? "

Keep flipping the coin until you land on f2.8 II - simple

 

[HarryWintergreen]

Both lenses are masterpieces by Canon. Arguing about what lense has the edge to me doesn't makes sense. F/2.8 can be an tremendous advantage. But since you already have the 300 f/2.8 this should not weigh too heavy. A lense is a tool. Not to be restricted by the weight when it comes to shooting over a longer period of time to me is quite important, too.

 

[Cali_PH]

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

I used to use pennies, but once I switched to nickels I haven't looked back. Sure, they weigh a lot more, but you can do more with them and the quality difference is amazing. Plus once I started using quarters, I hardly notice the weight difference. Compare for yourself:

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Penny

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Nickel