hello everyone. I purchased a Canon 70-200 f4 last year for only 600 dollars and now that i do indoor sports, i been thinking of getting the 2.8 is ii. I found someone i can trade lenses with with 800 coming from me. its a hell of a deal to get the 2.8 is ii for 1400. Should i do it?
should i trade my Canon 70-200 F4 IS to Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II?
- Thread starter np2576
- Start date
I currently have the 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I think they are both excellent lenses.
I think it simply comes down to whether the extra size/weight/cost of the 2.8 is worth it to you to gain the extra stop and hence the ability to keep shutter time shorter and get shallower DOF. The 2.8 is substantially heavier and larger than the 4 - you will certainly notice the difference - but the 2.8 is not unmanageable by any stretch of the imagination for many shooting scenarios. It really comes down to your preferences - which will in part reflect your use case. Shooting indoor sports sounds like a situation where the 2.8's extra stop would be very valuable (to help keep shutter time short to freeze action) and you probably aren't carrying the camera/lens long distances on foot, so my guess is you would probably like the 2.8 a lot.
I keep both lenses as I think the 2.8 IS II is fantastic for a lot of things - events, portraits, sports , etc - but there are times (eg when travelling involving a lot of hiking/walking, or casual outings with friends) when I just don't want to carry the size/weight of the 2.8 but I am comfortable carrying (or at least willing to carry
) the f/4 IS. I have to admit though I often wonder about selling the f/4 IS (or possibly the 2.8 IS II but I don't think that's going to happen really) and putting the money towards something else - a fast 50 (probably the 50 Art although the reported AF issues and bulk bother me), the 135 f/2 (maybe it could fill in as a "travel telephoto" in place of the 70-200 f/4 IS albeit I would lose the convenience of the zoom, plus it would be an awesome portrait and low level action/events lens), or the 16-35 f/4 IS (but not sure how much I would use the 16-24 range in practice, and I have 24-35 covered already with my 24-70 f/4 IS although it seems the 16-35 f/4 IS may do it a bit better).
I think it simply comes down to whether the extra size/weight/cost of the 2.8 is worth it to you to gain the extra stop and hence the ability to keep shutter time shorter and get shallower DOF. The 2.8 is substantially heavier and larger than the 4 - you will certainly notice the difference - but the 2.8 is not unmanageable by any stretch of the imagination for many shooting scenarios. It really comes down to your preferences - which will in part reflect your use case. Shooting indoor sports sounds like a situation where the 2.8's extra stop would be very valuable (to help keep shutter time short to freeze action) and you probably aren't carrying the camera/lens long distances on foot, so my guess is you would probably like the 2.8 a lot.
I keep both lenses as I think the 2.8 IS II is fantastic for a lot of things - events, portraits, sports , etc - but there are times (eg when travelling involving a lot of hiking/walking, or casual outings with friends) when I just don't want to carry the size/weight of the 2.8 but I am comfortable carrying (or at least willing to carry
) the f/4 IS. I have to admit though I often wonder about selling the f/4 IS (or possibly the 2.8 IS II but I don't think that's going to happen really) and putting the money towards something else - a fast 50 (probably the 50 Art although the reported AF issues and bulk bother me), the 135 f/2 (maybe it could fill in as a "travel telephoto" in place of the 70-200 f/4 IS albeit I would lose the convenience of the zoom, plus it would be an awesome portrait and low level action/events lens), or the 16-35 f/4 IS (but not sure how much I would use the 16-24 range in practice, and I have 24-35 covered already with my 24-70 f/4 IS although it seems the 16-35 f/4 IS may do it a bit better).
Upvote
0
I think it would boil down to what camera you are using it with. If you shoot with a 5d3 or 7d2 then you may be able to hold off on the 2.8 by using a higher ISO, both of these cameras can easily compensate for the 1 stop difference.
If you are using an older camera You might be limited to ISO 800 which may put you in a difficult spot indoors.
The f4 is much lighter as well. The 2.8 is pretty heavy but I've lugged it around along with a 300 2.8 but that's something you need to consider for yourself.
Both are great lenses.
If you are using an older camera You might be limited to ISO 800 which may put you in a difficult spot indoors.
The f4 is much lighter as well. The 2.8 is pretty heavy but I've lugged it around along with a 300 2.8 but that's something you need to consider for yourself.
Both are great lenses.
Upvote
0
Go for it. First off, the deal seems great from a monetary standpoint. Second, the optics are second-to-none and, in my view, that lens has no peer. Its ability to handle low light conditions is acknowledged. The weight is an issue but if you get a nice BlackRapid strap or equivalent, you can manage. Moreover, you are planning on doing events where you may not have to trudge long distances.
Go for it. You'll not regret it.
Go for it. You'll not regret it.
Upvote
0
Northbird
"Be a rainbow in somebody else's cloud" - Maya A.
<Quote> "......currently have the 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I think they are both excellent lenses.
I think it simply comes down to whether the extra size/weight/cost of the 2.8 is worth it to you to gain the extra stop and hence the ability to keep shutter time shorter and get shallower DOF. The 2.8 is substantially heavier and larger than the 4 - you will certainly notice the difference - but the 2.8 is not unmanageable by any stretch of the imagination for many shooting scenarios. It really comes down to your preferences - which will in part reflect your use case."</Quote>
I also have owned both lenses and totally agree with this. There are definitely situations where the F/4 versions lighter weight becomes a distinct advantage. In terms of image quality they are very close.
The 2.8 is not a lightweight, I also do not like the balance of this lens with a 2X TC attached.
I think it simply comes down to whether the extra size/weight/cost of the 2.8 is worth it to you to gain the extra stop and hence the ability to keep shutter time shorter and get shallower DOF. The 2.8 is substantially heavier and larger than the 4 - you will certainly notice the difference - but the 2.8 is not unmanageable by any stretch of the imagination for many shooting scenarios. It really comes down to your preferences - which will in part reflect your use case."</Quote>
I also have owned both lenses and totally agree with this. There are definitely situations where the F/4 versions lighter weight becomes a distinct advantage. In terms of image quality they are very close.
The 2.8 is not a lightweight, I also do not like the balance of this lens with a 2X TC attached.
Upvote
0
Once owned the f4 but once i started shooting indoors i just had to get the 2.8 mk2. Sold the f4 and got lucky late 2013 when they had the double dip rebates where the mk2 can be had for $1699 IIRC.
Yes it is bulkier but images are just superb, never regretted my decision.
Yes it is bulkier but images are just superb, never regretted my decision.
Upvote
0
I would also, in fact did. Had the f/4 and sold it to get the 2.8 IS II and it is now my most used and to me versatile lens.
Upvote
0
Yes.
I have the f/4 IS myself, and for $800 and a swap I would happily trade up to the f/2.8 IS II. That's a no-brainer.
Sure, the f/2.8 IS II is heavier, but the IQ is equal to or better than the f/4 IS (which is the best of the bunch of the original 70-200 L line-up), and you get the extra stop. In addition, if you put a 1.4x teleconverter on the f/2.8 IS II, you suddenly have a f/4 98-280 lens with no concerns about AF.
Do it. I would. In a heartbeat. In fact, if you decide not to do it, please let me have the contact info of the guy, and I'll do the trade.
I have the f/4 IS myself, and for $800 and a swap I would happily trade up to the f/2.8 IS II. That's a no-brainer.
Sure, the f/2.8 IS II is heavier, but the IQ is equal to or better than the f/4 IS (which is the best of the bunch of the original 70-200 L line-up), and you get the extra stop. In addition, if you put a 1.4x teleconverter on the f/2.8 IS II, you suddenly have a f/4 98-280 lens with no concerns about AF.
Do it. I would. In a heartbeat. In fact, if you decide not to do it, please let me have the contact info of the guy, and I'll do the trade.
Upvote
0
Just grab it, it's an amazing deal.np2576 said:
I had the Canon 70-200 f4L IS and sold it to get the f2.8L IS II version. It's heavy but a monster in capturing light and AF. But not a lens you would like to carry all day like the f4L's
Upvote
0
I own both the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS II. If I am hiking in daylight, not dusk or dawn, I prefer the lighter weight lens. However the AF of the f/2.8 is faster. I shoot indoor dance, and I always chose the f/2.8. If you can own the f/2.8 for $1400, sounds like a good deal. I paid $2400 ! I obtained my f/4 in a trade for my 70-300mm non-L plus $500. Have been more than happy with the swap.
Upvote
0
