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

[GuyF]

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

Hey Cali, those sites are fantastic! Things are much clearer now but I only have access to UK currency though I do think I've got a US quarter somewhere.

There must be a site out there that converts flipped US coins to UK sterling....

Found it!

http//www.Flippin'marvellousUStoUKconversions.com/toomuchtimeonyourhands

Oh thank you internet!

 

[GuyF]

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.

Gothmoth,

Pretty similar position to you but use the Sigma 85 f1.4 for portraits. Looks like I might keep the f4.

Guy.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Guy, stop for a moment, relax, breathe.

Before selling your current zoom or buying another, consider keeping your zoom and getting a 135 f2 to provide amazing speed and bokeh at the middle of your current zoom range.

135 f2L 1/800 @ f2

It's light weight, super fast, sharp and mch less conspicuous than any of the great whites. It is perfect for posed or candid portraits, indoors and out.

 

[GuyF]

IIIHobbs,

Sage words indeed however I don't feel I need another lens in that particular range. My Sigma 85mm f1.4 takes care of all the bokeh a man needs plus I can walk closer to my subject if required.

I also have the option of the 24-105mm too; not fast by any stretch but it offers a useful range.

My reasoning behind the potential change to the f2.8 was the (likely) improvement in IQ (not that the f4 is lacking in this area) coupled with the benefit of the 5D3's focus accuracy with wider aperture lenses.

I'm sure your suggestion will give others an often overlooked lens to consider.

Guy.

 

[K-amps]

I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one.

It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.

The f2.8 is fluid , soft and dreamy (and sharp) while the F4 is clinical and analytical and cold. Yes these are adjectives used for Audio, but they fit perfectly here. I can take many lenses and shoot portraits, but the ones people pick out as their favs is the F2.8 mk.ii. There is no lens that gets me the “Ooohs” and “Ahhhs” like the f2.8 does. (Granted I have not used the 135 f2 yet)

There is a quality of the f2.8 mk.ii that cannot be quantified, it is just amazingly beautiful, creamy…. Dreamy.

 

[AdamJ]

I recently got the f2.8 IS II and while I intended to sell my f4 IS, I actually still have it and probably won't sell it now. I generally consider the much lighter f4 IS to be my casual, travel and hiking telezoom of choice, while the 2.8 IS II gets all indoor and event duties. In other words, unless I need the extra stop or shallower DOF, I choose the f4 IS.

The 2.8 II is obviously more practical for extenders.

Between my copies of the lenses, I can't discern any practical IQ difference. I suppose I could test them both in a controlled environment but my view is that if you have to do that to see any difference, then the difference is irrelevant.

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

NO NO NO. I was referring to the poster who said the f/4 was sharper than the f/2.8. Personally I don't care, because you're right, in real life there isn't any difference.

 

[GuyF]

I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one.

It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.

The f2.8 is fluid , soft and dreamy (and sharp) while the F4 is clinical and analytical and cold. Yes these are adjectives used for Audio, but they fit perfectly here. I can take many lenses and shoot portraits, but the ones people pick out as their favs is the F2.8 mk.ii. There is no lens that gets me the “Ooohs” and “Ahhhs” like the f2.8 does. (Granted I have not used the 135 f2 yet)

There is a quality of the f2.8 mk.ii that cannot be quantified, it is just amazingly beautiful, creamy…. Dreamy.

K-amps,

Aha, one man's "clinical and analytical and cold" is another man's truthful uncoloured accuracy. To stick with the audio analogy, tubes or transistors?? There is much to be said for both (I'd maybe guess your "K" stands for Krell - if so, do I win a coconut?).

You may have tripped yourself up; "soft and dreamy (and sharp)". Hmmm, a bit like a red-hot ice cube?

I certainly can't justify having both (this from the man who once had Audio Research and Conrad Johnson pre-amps at the same time just so I could have butterscotch or peppermint as the mood took me).

Of course all this still hinges on a colleague wanting to buy my f4. If not, it's all a bit moot.

Oh when will this nightmare end?

 

[Jamesy]

You could always rent a 2.8 Mk.II and try it out next to your 4.0 IS and judge for yourself. That si what I did and decided to keep my 4.0 IS , 85/1.8 and 135/F2. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date though... Oh wait, that last answer is reserved for my wife

 

[vuilang]

is the IS 2.8II feel that heavy?? I have it but never feel the weight unless i carry 2 camera and the 2.8isII is dangling.

 

[dlleno]

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 II is sharper. whether or not that difference is noticable or important is up to you

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 will likey focus faster, although I haven't heard any complaints about the f/4 AF at f/5.6 with TC. I get amazing fast AF on mine, but again whether or not any difference is noticable or important, is up to you.

without TC, the f/2.8 II should have an AF advantage, but I've never heard of the f/4 coming up short of anyone's expectations and since I've never shot with the f/4 I can't confirm it.

I CAN confirm IS on the f/2.8 II is simply outstanding. 1/15th second handheld at 200mm is not unreasonable. seriously.

 

[Loswr]

I CAN confirm IS on the f/2.8 II is simply outstanding. 1/15th second handheld at 200mm is not unreasonable. seriously.

Try 0.5 s at 95mm. Free held, not braced or rested against anything.


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 95mm, 1/2 s, f/5.6, ISO 100

 

[tron]

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 II is sharper. whether or not that difference is noticable or important is up to you

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 will likey focus faster, although I haven't heard any complaints about the f/4 AF at f/5.6 with TC. I get amazing fast AF on mine, but again whether or not any difference is noticable or important, is up to you.

without TC, the f/2.8 II should have an AF advantage, but I've never heard of the f/4 coming up short of anyone's expectations and since I've never shot with the f/4 I can't confirm it.

I CAN confirm IS on the f/2.8 II is simply outstanding. 1/15th second handheld at 200mm is not unreasonable. seriously.

I can also confirm that IS on the f/4L IS is also outstanding. Since it is a light lens it is very easy to hold it steady...

 

[dlleno]

I find the weight of the f/2.8 II to be an advantage, but that could be just me. Nice work neuroanatomist I happen to appreciate and greatly respect blurred waterfalls especially handheld ones -- this takes more than a casual attention to technique, IS notwithstanding. I do suspect when you factor in the advantage of a FF and the shorter focal length, your conditions are similar to 1/15th at 200mm on a 1.6x crop body.

 

[Loswr]

Nice work neuroanatomist I happen to appreciate and greatly respect blurred waterfalls especially handheld ones -- this takes more than a casual attention to technique, IS notwithstanding.

Thanks!

Indeed, technique matters. Even without IS, you can take relatively long exposures. Here's one with the 35L, no tripod - I rested the camera on the railing of a pedestrian bridge for the shot, it's a 2.5 s exposure.


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 2.5 s, f/5.6, ISO 100

 

[K-amps]

K-amps,

Aha, one man's "clinical and analytical and cold" is another man's truthful uncoloured accuracy. To stick with the audio analogy, tubes or transistors?? There is much to be said for both (I'd maybe guess your "K" stands for Krell - if so, do I win a coconut?).

You may have tripped yourself up; "soft and dreamy (and sharp)". Hmmm, a bit like a red-hot ice cube?

I certainly can't justify having both (this from the man who once had Audio Research and Conrad Johnson pre-amps at the same time just so I could have butterscotch or peppermint as the mood took me).

Of course all this still hinges on a colleague wanting to buy my f4. If not, it's all a bit moot.

Oh when will this nightmare end?

You my friend have indeed won the Coconut, in the 10_years that I have had this handle, no one could have guessed that the K does indeed stand for "Krell" and the Amps is thus a no brainer.

I would not keep both lenses, agreed. The f2.8 is still truthfull, but yes it is more like Tubes while the F4 is more like transistors. (I like both by the way). However, you can stop down the F2.8 and get it to act more like the F4... and for a guy that owned CJ's and AR's at the same time, I am sure a little bit of weight is not going to be a deal breaker is it?

Lastly: Prior to owning it, I came up with every logical reasoning to get the F4, it makes just more sense... but having owned the F2.8, I would never go back and I love almost all the shots I take with it... Having owned this, I can tell you that it is worth so much more than the price it is available for, it is like having 130 primes rolled into 1 !

 

[7enderbender]

Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.

Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:

1. The f4 is fantastic. It's sharp and light enough that I can carry it around all afternoon in my hand without any bother.
2. The f2.8 is faster and the IS is no doubt better BUT it is almost twice the weight of the f4.

As I have arms like wet noodles the weight is a slight issue for all-day shooting but not necessarily a deal breaker (I've got the 300mm f2.8 IS too but I don't handhold it all afternoon).

So the real question is: is the f2.8 IQ significantly better than the f4? (The fact it should focus quicker and track better with the 5D3 is also a given).

What should I do?

Thanks for any opinions.

Here's a thought: you already have a fast 300. Why not keep the f4 and add another fast prime instead? 135L come to mind.

I opted to forgo any big white 70-200 zoom and bought the 135L and 200 2.8LII instead. Never looked back.

 

[Joes Dad]

For what its worth, in my view, the f/4 is fantastic. The f/2.8 II is fantasticer. The weight is worth it in every respect. I only consider my 200 f/2.0 to be sharper.

 

[GuyF]

All,

Many thanks for the opinions. I should be able to briefly try the f2.8 II in a day or so. I won't be able to do much more than a rudimentary comparrison with the f4 but it's better than nothing.

K-amps: I might have had CJ and ARC gear but I didn't have to lug it around with me all day! Hmmm, 130 f2.8 primes in one? Now you're talking!

Stay tuned....

Guy.

 

[GuyF]

Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.

My (admittedly limited) findings:

1. The f2.8 is much more substantial in size/weight than the f4. The f4 is quite dinky in comparison! As I often use the 70-200mm as an "always in the hand rather than on a strap walk-about" lens I'm conscious of the fact the added weight would be an issue after a while. Hand cramp is a cruel mistress. (Cue comments about the best strap to use.)

2. Focusing with the f2.8 was maybe a bit quicker but not definitive. We're talking tiny fractions of a second here and my perception - you want to believe a newer, more expensive lens will focus quicker.

3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.

4. Colour - both allow you to take colour images No obvious fringing horrors. Both were good enough for me (I'm going through the obligatory convert-everything-to-black-and-white phase).

5. IS on the f2.8 is much quieter than the f4. Shhhh!

6. The f4 has more vignetting (duh!) but nothing that would ruin any shot. The miracles of modern software can cure many ailments.

So I reckon the f2.8 at twice the price and twice the weight is not necessarily twice the lens. However if I couldn't live without that wider aperture I wouldn't shed a tear as I parted with the money. The f2.8 is very good but not essential to me. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in transit. Offer void in Utah.

At least now I can put that money aside for the 42mp 1D XMF due in Feb 2013 (oops, did anyone see a cat getting out of a bag?).

If you feel strongly that I've missed a point or my opinions are complete poop, I reserve the right to ignore you!