Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 13 Jul 2010 (Tuesday) 02:56
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

How many of you have both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II?

 
lsquare
Goldmember
1,891 posts
Joined Apr 2008
MORE INFO

I think some people here have gears specifically for travelling and some for serious work when they're home. For travelling, a nice and light telephoto lens is pretty much necessary. Given the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, the 70-200mm f/4 L IS makes a nice alternative. It does seem a bit overblown to have two very similar lens for different purposes. I'm just wondering how many of you have such a setup and if not, would any of you consider it?

Jul 13, 2010 02:56



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
mike cabilangan's Avatar
1,367 posts

Joined Apr 2010

Metro Manila
MORE INFO

good question (want to see if many people keep both as well)

Jul 13, 2010 03:31

camera bag reviewsexternal link
flickrexternal linkgearLust

LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,816 posts
Joined Sep 2005

CT
MORE INFO

I have both. I really only use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for weddings and paid work - in fact, if I stopped doing weddings tomorrow, I'd sell it. The 70-200 f/4 IS has fantastic IQ, is fairly lightweight and compact, and really a pleasure to use. Like you say, the f/2.8 is big and heavy, and IMO a real commitment to carry around for casual use.

For me, the physical characteristic of these lenses are different enough to justify having both - unlike have both a 24-70 + 24-105, or a 16-35 + 17-40. Here's a side by side comparison:

IMAGE: http://www.timnosenzophoto.com/Other/Gear/IMG1154/813857175_Qjp77-L.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.timnosenzop​hoto.com ...LT35#813857175_Qjp7​7-A-LB] (external link)
Jul 13, 2010 05:58

connecticut wedding photographerexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,891 posts
Joined Apr 2008
MORE INFO

timnosenzo wrote in post #10526477 (external link)
I have both. I really only use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for weddings and paid work - in fact, if I stopped doing weddings tomorrow, I'd sell it. The 70-200 f/4 IS has fantastic IQ, is fairly lightweight and compact, and really a pleasure to use. Like you say, the f/2.8 is big and heavy, and IMO a real commitment to carry around for casual use.

For me, the physical characteristic of these lenses are different enough to justify having both - unlike have both a 24-70 + 24-105, or a 16-35 + 17-40. Here's a side by side comparison:

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://www.timnosenzop​hoto.com ...LT35#813857175_Qjp7​7-A-LB] (external link)

Thanks for the comparison photos!

For travelling, I was thinking of using both the 17-40mm f4/L and 70-200 f/4 L IS. I'll also add a Panasonic GF1 with a 20mm f/1.7 lens for low light. This would be my ideal travel setup.

I wonder how many people actually do this though. Obviously it's going to cost money, but since I don't make money from photography, it's not really an issue for me. It's just all for fun, but there's still the practical part in which I have to deal with. Is it practical and whether it's a waste of money or not even though it'll have its uses.

Jul 13, 2010 06:35



LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,816 posts
Joined Sep 2005

CT
MORE INFO

lsquare wrote in post #10526566external link
I wonder how many people actually do this though.

Probably not many, but if it works for you then that is all that is important.

Jul 13, 2010 06:42

connecticut wedding photographerexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,891 posts
Joined Apr 2008
MORE INFO

timnosenzo wrote in post #10526576external link
Probably not many, but if it works for you then that is all that is important.

Was your reason for getting both the same as mine?

Jul 13, 2010 06:43



LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,816 posts
Joined Sep 2005

CT
MORE INFO

lsquare wrote in post #10526578external link
Was your reason for getting both the same as mine?

I had the f/4 IS for a while before adding the f/2.8. I added the f/2.8 IS because after shooting a few weddings I felt like having a fast tele zoom would be helpful for ceremonies where space is tight, or where I can't move around (I typically use fixed lenses for everything). However, I like the f/4 IS so much for general travel/hiking/landscap​e photography that I didn't want to sell it to get the f/2.8, so I didn't. But for me, the f/2.8 serves a very specific purpose and it typically won't leave the house unless I know that I'll need it.

Jul 13, 2010 06:57

connecticut wedding photographerexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,891 posts
Joined Apr 2008
MORE INFO

timnosenzo wrote in post #10526622external link
I had the f/4 IS for a while before adding the f/2.8. I added the f/2.8 IS because after shooting a few weddings I felt like having a fast tele zoom would be helpful for ceremonies where space is tight, or where I can't move around (I typically use fixed lenses for everything). However, I like the f/4 IS so much for general travel/hiking/landscap​e photography that I didn't want to sell it to get the f/2.8, so I didn't. But for me, the f/2.8 serves a very specific purpose and it typically won't leave the house unless I know that I'll need it.

That's exactly how I would feel if I were you.

Jul 13, 2010 07:00



LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
Cream of the Crop
umphotography's Avatar
8,554 posts
GALLERY: 2 photos

Joined Oct 2007

minnesota
MORE INFO

i had both and swaped the 70-200 f/4 is for a 35L. The 70-200 f/2.8(is) is my favorite lens and its on my cameras all the time. but it is a pain in the but to carry around all day. grabbed a 70-200 f/4 and i use it a lot.

Jul 13, 2010 07:04 as a reply to lsquare's post 4 minutes earlier.

Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts

Joined Jan 2008

Montreal, Canada
MORE INFO

My boss is in town and is seriously thinking of selling his 70-200 (Nikon). The weight, size is just a pain for a walk around or travel and he's tired of it.

I told him I went Canon for 2 reasons. One of them was the 70-200 f4 IS (my first lens).

My sentiments are as from the couple of wedding shooters above. Still, it works fine for me shooting concerts (my main use for this lens) so I have never missed not having 2.8 in this range of zoom.

Jul 13, 2010 07:06

Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TxDiver
Member
245 posts
Joined May 2009
MORE INFO

The 2.8 is fine for even hiking I think, but then again I am in the gym for 1 hour most days of the week (and no I am not some young 20 something year old). Last summer I hiked all over Colorado with it, along with the 16-35.

Jul 13, 2010 07:09



LOG IN TO REPLY
TxDiver
Member
245 posts
Joined May 2009
MORE INFO

TxDiver wrote in post #10526677external link
The 2.8 is fine for even hiking I think, but then again I am in the gym for 1 hour most days of the week (and no I am not some young 20 something year old). Last summer I hiked all over Colorado with it, along with the 16-35.

Actually, it was my 100-400 that I had with me with the 16-35...but the weight is similar and my point is that if someone has the 2.8 for certain needs, then it is also reasonable to use it when the 4 would suffice, just to save by not buying multiple zooms of the same range.

Jul 13, 2010 07:11



LOG IN TO REPLY
spkerer
Senior Member
spkerer's Avatar
946 posts

Joined Mar 2008

Leesburg, VA USA
MORE INFO

I had the f/4 IS for a while and then picked up the f/2.8 IS II when it came out. I haven't used the f/4 since about a week after getting the f/2.8 IS II. I'm not sure what I'll do with it at this point, but its sitting around bored at home.

Jul 13, 2010 07:12

C&C Always welcome! Gear List
"Photo 601" Leesburg Volunteer Fire Company, Leesburg, Virginia
Fire photos at
http://photos.kusterer​s.net/fireexternal link
external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
taxsux
Senior Member
392 posts
Joined Apr 2008
MORE INFO

I did a Coogee - Bondi hike, Sydney people know this is a task. I had the 7-2 2.8 IS and 24-70. But like spkerer, I'm a gym junkie as well.

Jul 13, 2010 07:14



LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts

Joined Jan 2008

Montreal, Canada
MORE INFO

Here we go, again ;-)a

It's not a 100 lb bag of cement but attached to a camera body and having to raise/lower it 200 times, while manuevering does enter your consciousness after awhile. Do this for a few days in a row and you start thinking of a suitable replacement.

Maybe it doesn't bother you and you are willing to put up with it but I don't subscribe to the suffereing artist theory.

Add the fact that you may have a couple of additional lenses along with you, which also may be on the heavy side... it adds up.

In a backpack.... who cares.

With the new MKII it did enter my mind to pick one up, then I thought about what/where I was shooting the last week, almost daily, for 4 hrs/day... dragging a 70-200 f2.8 along with a 300 f4IS and a mid range zoom quickly vanquished that idea from my mind especially since it would not have improved my keeper rate one bit.

Each to their own.

Jul 13, 2010 07:22

Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,646 views & 0 likes for this thread
How many of you have both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.33version 1.33
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0022 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Pauld73
718 guests, 590 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5175, that happened on Jun 16, 2015