70-200/4L vs 70-200/2.8L (non-IS)

[Mike H]

This question is for people that have shot (or still shoot) both of these lenses. How would you compare the two in use? Is there a difference in focusing speed or any other shooting characteristics? I've read the specs and MTF curves, so now I just want to hear about what the differences are in actual use.

My 70-200/4L is my all-time favorite lens, but there have been a few times (though not many) that I wanted to use f/2.8 and didn't have it. Hence, I'm thinking of getting the heavier model.

By the way, does it come with the tripod ring? B&H doesn't have that listed in the included items, but it's on the features list that they show.

Thanks,

[GeneMan88]

I own the f/4 version and I've borrowed a friend's f/2.8 non IS... he said it should come with the tri-pod ring for the $$$ you'll pay for that lens. IMO I didn't really notice any major quality difference between the two when it came to photos. Both lenses are capable of great photos (as expected from L's). Advantage of the f/4 is it's light weight... great walk-around lens. Yes, the f/2.8 has the advantage of larger aperture... but I usually stepped it down to f/4 & beyond, and it's HEAVY. Just like most other's here, I would love to own the f/2.8 IS or non IS version, but right now I can't justify the $$$. Just like you, there are a few times where I wished I had the f/2.8, but the f/4 is very capable and I love using it.

[raylks]

I share your viewpoint. I have f4L already and it costs me damn lot of money to upgrade for one more f-stop.

If you always shoot in low-light or using 70-200mm for portrait, then you may go for f2.8 to allow a shallower depth of field. But for shooting landscape or bring a lens for hike, then f4L shall be sufficient enough.

[pcasciola]

I just shot a baseball game last night under the lights with my 70-200/2.8L IS. While I did take a few shots at f/4, I used IS for most of those. 90% of my shots were at f/2.8, ISO 3200 without IS. It's by far my favorite lens now. The 2.8 also gives you the ability to use the 1.4x extender to make it roughly a 100-280mm f/4 with IS. I just got the extender yesterday, so i'll be giving that a try this weekend.

I also tried a friend's 70-200/4L just for a little while on his 10D. It's definitely much smaller and lighter, and being the cheapest L zoom on the market today, it's a great bang for your buck lens. I can definitely see myself owning both at some point.

Bottom line is, $1100 on top of the price of the f/4L version is a lot to pay for f/2.8 and IS, but that's what I need most of the time. If you only need the extra stop or IS once in a while, it's a big premium to pay.

Ooops, I just realized you only wanted a comparison with the non-IS after I submitted this. If you are only looking for the extra stop, you might want to take a look at the Sigma 70-200/2.8. I was about to buy that when I got a deal on the 70-200/2.8L IS. The Sigma will get you the extra stop for only about a $200 upgrade, and from what I've seen it's every bit as sharp as the Canon.

[RichardtheSane]

I can't find my original thread where I asked this, was a while ago!

Basically I asked the same question because I was deciding which of the two lenses to buy. Af speed was my main concern as my main subject requires lightening AF. The consensus I got at the time from people who had used both was that there was no difference in AF speed between the F4 and F2.8 versions of the lens.

Since I didn't use F2.8 that much I bought the F4. (Plus it makes it easier to justify upgrading to the F2.8 IS when the time comes :) :) )

[Persian-Rice]

I have owned the f/4 and own the f/2.8 non-IS. They are truly impressive lenses.

The only distinct advantage of having the 2.8 is extra stop and the tripod collar, you will need it if you are tripoding. They focus is the same, maybe the f/2.8 feels faster, but I think that is me, since I havent used the f/4 in a while.

With the f/4 you dont need a ring, and if you think you do, you are better off buying a very good bogen setup for the price of a ring that can handle the weight. The downside of the f/2.8 is it's big, it's heavy, it's fairly expensive, and if you think you stand out with the f/4, you have seen nothing yet, the f/2.8 is much bigger.

I was going to buy the IS model and realized I have no use for it in sports, which is what I use it for, but the f/2.8 was the difference between really blurry hockey shots to perfect captures. One stop doesnt sound like much, but it is very big differnce.

[GeneMan88]

Pcasciola brings in a good point... I plan on getting an extender (1.4x) in the future too, which will cost a couple of f-stops. With the f/2.8 & an extender(1.4x), you would end with a f-stop of 3.5, but with the f/4, it would end up at f/5. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I wanna help spread info that's as accurate as possible.

[Mike H]

... if you think you stand out with the f/4, you have seen nothing yet, the f/2.8 is much bigger.

This is an interesting point that I have heard people mention before. When you look at the specs from Canon, the f/2.8 is only .3 inches more in diameter and .8 inches longer. It doesn't seem like much. But since so many people that have both lenses have made this observation I think it must be true when you actually see them (rather than just look at the numbers). Also, the weight (almost twice as much) may make people think that there is a bigger difference in size that there really is.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

[MarkH]

Pcasciola brings in a good point... I plan on getting an extender (1.4x) in the future too, which will cost a couple of f-stops. With the f/2.8 & an extender(1.4x), you would end with a f-stop of 3.5, but with the f/4, it would end up at f/5. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I wanna help spread info that's as accurate as possible.

The f2.8 becomes f4 with a 1.4x TC (one stop) and f5.6 with a 2x TC (2 stops).

The f4 becomes f5.6 with a 1.4 TC and f8 with a 2x TC.

The 2x TC spreads the light thinner so that only one quarter of the light intensity reaches the sensor, the 1.4x TC provides half the light compared to without TC (but twice as much as with the 2x).

Basically either TC will cost you light intensity and image quality, but with a good sharp lens you will not notice the quality reduction much with the 1.4x TC. With the 2x TC the photos may still be quite acceptable, but you will probably be able to see the quality loss if you look closely (but printed at 4x6 you wont notice).

[MarkH]

I have owned the f/4 and own the f/2.8 non-IS. They are truly impressive lenses.

The only distinct advantage of having the 2.8 is extra stop and the tripod collar, you will need it if you are tripoding. They focus is the same, maybe the f/2.8 feels faster, but I think that is me, since I havent used the f/4 in a while.

Actually the focus may be better on the f2.8, it depends on the camera. Several of Canon's bodies are able to use a high precision mode for the centre sensor when using a lens with f2.8 or better.

[tim]

When I just had my 300D and kit lens, my teacher let me use his F2.8 non-IS for ten minutes one day, and damn that is a HEAVY LENS! After ten minutes I had to take it off, it was just too heavy for me. If you get the 2.8 lens expect to work on your arm strength for a while before you can hand hold it for any length of time.