Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a 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
1,932 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 02:56 |  #1

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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Jul 13, 2010 03:31 |  #2

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


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Jul 13, 2010 05:58 |  #3

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 LINK: http://www.timnosenzop​hoto.com …LT35#813857175_​Qjp77-A-LB  (external link)

connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,932 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 06:35 |  #4

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 LINK: http://www.timnosenzop​hoto.com …LT35#813857175_​Qjp77-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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Jul 13, 2010 06:42 |  #5

lsquare wrote in post #10526566 (external 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.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,932 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 06:43 |  #6

timnosenzo wrote in post #10526576 (external 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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Jul 13, 2010 06:57 |  #7

lsquare wrote in post #10526578 (external 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.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,932 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:00 |  #8

timnosenzo wrote in post #10526622 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,941 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1662
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:04 as a reply to  @ lsquare's post |  #9

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.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:06 |  #10

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.


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

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TxDiver
Member
245 posts
Joined May 2009
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:09 |  #11

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TxDiver
Member
245 posts
Joined May 2009
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:11 |  #12

TxDiver wrote in post #10526677 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spkerer
Senior Member
Avatar
953 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Leesburg, VA USA
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:12 |  #13

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.


Leesburg, Virginia
http://photos.kusterer​s.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
taxsux
Senior Member
392 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:14 |  #14

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:22 |  #15

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.


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

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

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

4,156 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 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mason.snipes
321 guests, 272 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.