EF 70-200/2.8L IS or EF 70-200/4L IS + EF200/2.8 ??

[SaSi]

I am considering either getting the 70-200/2.8IS or the lighter /4IS + the 200/2.8 prime.

In terms of cost, both options are about the same price. Surely two lenses are more bulk than one, but this is not bothering me.

My thinking is that the /4IS will deliver better IQ than the /2.8IS and being smaller/lighter will be more usable.

For low light, I can have the 200/2.8 (and the 100/2.8 I already have).

On the other hand, this 3 lens combo can be replaced with a single, bulkier lens.

I would appreciate some thoughts on this, especially with an emphasis on IQ.

[crn3371]

I wouldn't even put IQ into the equation, as I doubt if you'd really notice much difference between the 3. All are excellant lenses, all are sharp in their own right. For that reason, I'd go for the 1 lens solution, giving you stabilized f2.8 throughout the entire zoom range.

[john dm]

what he said.

You can also (as I do) put a 1.4 extender on the 2.8 and wind up with a 280mm f4 that takes superb shots.

[SaSi]

Thanks for your comments. What makes me consider IQ primarily are the comparison test shots at www.the-digital-picture.com. The 200/2.8 and 70-200/4IS seem in another league compared to the 70-200/2.8IS. Most people's comments seem to agree on this as well as tests in other sites.

I am mainly planning to replace my Sigma 80-400 which is not bad in IQ (much worse than all lenses above) but is slow focusing and has a harsh bokeh. I am not really interested in putting a 2xTC on the lens as I will be using the 500/4 prime along.

I am just thinking that carying the /4 with the 500/4 on the camera will be easier. And the 200/2.8 can easily fit in a waist pocket, can't it?

[mntbikejack]

Sharpness between the 70-200 IS 2.8 & 4 IS will not be an issue. The 2.8 is a big lens, but I do not have a problem carrying it around.
If you need to have 2.8 performance get the 70-200 2.8. I find that being able to use 2.8 in the evening during an outdoor events an advantage.
I don’t think sharpness should ever be a factor between the f4 & f2.8.
You should ask yourself what the minimal available light will be for what you what to use the lens for.

--Jack

[canotographer]

How much slower when the 70-200/2.8 L IS is when it's with the Canon 1.4 white extender?? I have 30D and 5D body... I guess the combo's AF speed should be better on 5D? Am I correct?

[MueveloNYC]

2 stops slower...

[orisky]

I had the 70-200 F2.8IS. Ended up selling it and went with the 70-200 F4IS + 135 F2L.

[LightRules]

I am considering either getting the 70-200/2.8IS or the lighter /4IS + the 200/2.8 prime.

Surely a nice dilemma.

My thinking is that the /4IS will deliver better IQ than the /2.8IS and being smaller/lighter will be more usable.

Yes the f4IS has slightly better IQ (certainly at closer subject distances but not necessarily at further subject distances), but I wouldn't make this determinative. But the weight/bulk issue is significant, so certainly consider this factor.

For low light, I can have the 200/2.8 (and the 100/2.8 I already have).

Yes, but the 7-2f2.8IS is even better for low light.

I would appreciate some thoughts on this, especially with an emphasis on IQ

Again, I just don't think this should be the main thing. They're all great glass at day's end.


***

[Fabrian]

Had a palpitation when I saw this thread.

[LightRules]

Had a palpitation when I saw this thread.

:lol: ;) [Inside joke, sorry folks]

[SaSi]

Thanks, all.

I guess I don't feel I need f/2.8 most of the time. Anyhow, in low light colour doesn't register all too well so I prefer bright days.

I will start with the /4IS and see how it goes.

[denno75uk]

2 stops slower...

Are you sure? A X1.4TC on a 2.8 gives a f4. That's one full stop. A X2TC slows it by 2 stops to f5.6.