Canon 70-200mm f/4

[Vegas Poboy]

Ok Folks,
I've been drowling over the 10D since I got to play with it @ the PMA this year and I'm less than 15 days away from getting it but I don't see a reason in spending $1300.00+ on the 70-200mm f/2.8. I would like to know is the f/4 ($579.00) version of this lens just as good as owning the f/2.8. I'm thinking since I'll be using it mostly with the digital all I have to due is bump up the ISO for the shots I'll need that extra stop. Overall I like the size & weight and mostly the price of the f/4.

[ChrisNardone]

I am feeling like a broken record. ;) I have this lens and love it. The 70-200 2.8 is a monster (to me). I think the f/4 is a no brainer. Especially for the money. One more stop for twice the weight and twice the money? That's not my bag baby.

[jduncan]

hi
i have the f4 and for my first week of ownership i also had a borrowed 2.8
in my opinion they are both great lenses.
the focusing is fast and silent on both and the quality is fantastic for both.
the only differences i could see are the one stop advantage for the 2.8 and the weight differences. the 2.8 is like carrying a housebrick round your neck.

regards

james

www.jamesduncan.com

[jray]

I just got the f/4 and have had the f/2.8 non-is for some time. They are both great, but the f/4 seems to be just a bit sharper than the f/2.8 is at f/4. Which one to use depends on what you plan to shoot with it.

I shot some outdoor evening concert shots over the 4th of July and tried to use the f/4 for some of them. I found that well lit shots (several 1kw par lamps) were not a problem, but as the light fell off, I was shooting at ISO 1600 and 1/125 second at 200mm. Needless to say I got more shots with noticeable camera shake than I had hoped for. That one stop really helps, but to be honest the f/2.8 IS is the right one for such work. This would have allowed ISO 800 shots at 1/60th second and 200mm as long as motion blur was not an issue.

The point is, it depends on what you shoot. I have decided that I need to get the f/2.8 IS version, sell the f/2.8 non-IS version, and keep the f/4 for times when the light is good and I want to carry a lighter kit.

[Vegas Poboy]

Sold,
Thanks for the info I'm goingwith the f/4 for now. That way I can also get the 17-40mm f/4 thats two for the price of one. Thanks again for the reply's

[Marignan_1515]

I'm bought the 70-200 f/4 this week and expect a delivery the week-end or early next week.
I'm spent about 2 week analysis the pros/cons (you can have some information by reading the topics: Canon Lnes 70-200L 2.8 IS
(2nd half of the msg) @
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15021

key elements:
Lens Price US weight
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L.............$600......705g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L.......$1 150...1 310g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS...$1 650...1 470g

PhotoZone
Canon EF 70-200mm USM L
Canon EF 70-200mm USM L
Lens _______________f2_8 _______________f/4 ________________f/2_8 IS
Optical Verdict: _______excellent4_76 ______excellent4_73 ______excellent4_71
AF Speed: ___________extrly fast(*****) ____fast(****+) ______fast(****+)
Build Quality: ________superb(*****) ______superb(*****) ______superb(*****)
rank over 93 EOS zoom _1 __________________2 __________________3


see also http://www.geocities.com/jacques_weber_us/tele.htm
or for the prime: http://www.geocities.com/jacques_weber_us/prime.htm