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

[Fleetie]

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!

3 : Based on the samples of each lens that I've owned, I'd agree. Others will probably lambast you for saying it, though. Expect some heat!

6: Why "Duh!"? I'd expect more vignetting from the f/2.8 version. But vignetting does not bother me, so I haven't paid any attention to it.

As for reserving the right to ignore those who consider your opinions poopy, well good on you! You've gone out there, done some tests, and arrived at a conclusion, rather than just relying on web reviews and the opinions of people like me. Can't argue with that.

 

[Jamesy]

I own the F4 IS and have shot with the F2.8 IS and can afford the Big Boy of I wanted but have stuck with the F4 for reasons previously stated. Weight and size. I have a 135L for those times I need reach and speed. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Razor2012]

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.

 

[Jamesy]

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.

By speed do you mean speed of AF or the 2.8 being 'faster' than the 4.0?

 

[canon816]

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.

Hahah. I said that the f4 was slightly sharper early on in this thread... and I quickly got several heated responses about how incorrect I was. Interesting that you saw this as well.... AFMA could have something to do with it, but as long as you were looking at the "in focus" part of the image for comparison then you are all set.

Also.... the difference in sharpness is splitting hairs. Both are painfully sharp lenses. My reason for bringing up that the f4 was sharper was not to get into a debate about which lens was sharper, but rather that at half the price (if you don't need f2.8 ) the f4 will make just as great of an image.

Enjoy your new lens....

 

[Mistah.vega]

I have the 70-200 f/4 non is and I just picked up the f/2.8 non is, I have 7d & 5dmkii, the f/4 is a great lense. Do you really think the f/2.8 is necessary? I haven't used the f/2.8 much but I haven't been wowed. Thinking about returning to B&H and getting the fisheye zoom. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Thanks

 

[Wilmark]

I feel that anyone advising your to stay with the F4 may be ill advising you. You should rent one for a job or a few days and try it out. This is one lens i never regret spending the extra for. It is an unbelievable combo with the 5D3. Esp anything that involves fast focusing, or where you have to step away from the front-line. It is probably the best zoom out there ANY BRAND incl nokin. The stand out you get as well with F2.8 cannot compare to F4. WHen every i shoot with my 24-105 i severely miss the extra stop. I have carried 5D3+70-200 combo for 5 hrs at a time shooing, I am 5'6" with small arms. And i dont have a problem with it.

 

[Menace]

I traded in my 70-200 f4 non IS for 70-200 f2.8 IS II two days ago, paired with my 5d III - all I can say is ;D

Would like to write more but I'm going out to shoot.

 

[marekjoz]

I traded in my 70-200 f4 non IS for 70-200 f2.8 IS II two days ago, paired with my 5d III - all I can say is ;D

Would like to write more but I'm going out to shoot.

How much did you have to add?

 

[Razor2012]

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.

By speed do you mean speed of AF or the 2.8 being 'faster' than the 4.0?

Just that combo period, an incredible match.

 

[Wilmark]

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.

Honestly i dont know how you can compare these two lenses. There is a huge difference between F2.8 and F4. Most of my shots with this lens are shot at F2.8. Its so damn pleasing. WHen you shoot with the 70-200 you are usually about 20 or more feet away from the subject and your main desire is to have your subject lifted from its surroundings. I hardly ever try to soot a scene or a large group where i want everything in focus with this lens. I would never trade the 2.8 option for 4.0 at these FLs. Now with the wider ranges, I chose to go with the 24-105 F4 instead of the much more expensive 24-70 2.8 options.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

Keep the F/4 70-200.

If you'd like, you could add a 100mm F/2 or 135 F/2L to your bag when you need the extra 2 Stops of speed. These lenses are not too expensive either.

 

[Razor2012]

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.

Honestly i dont know how you can compare these two lenses. There is a huge difference between F2.8 and F4. Most of my shots with this lens are shot at F2.8. Its so damn pleasing. WHen you shoot with the 70-200 you are usually about 20 or more feet away from the subject and your main desire is to have your subject lifted from its surroundings. I hardly ever try to soot a scene or a large group where i want everything in focus with this lens. I would never trade the 2.8 option for 4.0 at these FLs. Now with the wider ranges, I chose to go with the 24-105 F4 instead of the much more expensive 24-70 2.8 options.

Exactly, the 2.8 most definately has the 'pop'. For wide I'm using the 16-35II now, but waiting for the 24-70II to arrive.