Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 01 Feb 2011 (Tuesday) 04:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs f/2.8 IS mk1

 
Porkywill
Member
Avatar
248 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Weybridge
     
Feb 01, 2011 04:26 |  #1

I have looked and searched for a comparison and cannot find one, so please forgive me if there is one!

I have been looking at the 70-200 L lenses from Canon and it seemed that the f/4 IS was the one due to all the positive feedback coupled with IS, constant aperture, size, weight and the amazing images it achieves, not to mention the price!

The 2.8 IS II looks lovely but is simply a no-no due to price, so that's not in the picture.

How does the first version of the f/2.8 IS compare to the f/4 IS? I'm not interested in how the f/2.8 IS II compares to the f/4 IS, just the 1st version please.

I like the idea of 2.8 instead of 4. I want the IS, I want a zoom, I want 'L' standard quality and I want a constant aperture so please no recommendations of the 100-400 etc. thank you.

Has anyone had both of these lenses in their hands, and which would you say is the better lens and why?

Thanks,

Will


Kit: 7D, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS, Sigma 17-70mm OS, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8 II, Nissin Di622, Slik Pro 500 DX, SX220, Gorillapod ;)
Wanted: 77mm or 72mm ND500 filter, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 150-500

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nordstern1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,303 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Feb 01, 2011 06:43 |  #2

I had both at one time & i decided to sell the f4 IS. They are both very good lenses, with each others pros & cons. The f2.8 is better in low-light (duh) but very big & heavy. The f4 is slightly sharper, smaller & lighter. It will all boil down to what is important to you.


JOE
G10 | 5D | 40D | 17-55 2.8 IS | 16-35 2.8 L II | 24-70 2.8 L | 70-200 2.8 IS L | 85 1.2 L II | 430EX
manfrotto | tenba | crumpler | clik elite | tamrac | op/tech | blackrapid | sandisk | b+w | marumi | giottos | mac | buffalo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Porkywill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
248 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Weybridge
     
Feb 02, 2011 03:49 as a reply to  @ nordstern1's post |  #3

I'm not that worries about weight as I won't be carrying the lens around with me all that often. I want it to be sharp and fast, but the f/4 seems to be such a good lens, I just wondered whether it was better to get the f/4 if the f/2.8 II is not an option or whether, for not that much more, I should be looking at the f/2.8 I?

Thanks,

Will


Kit: 7D, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS, Sigma 17-70mm OS, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8 II, Nissin Di622, Slik Pro 500 DX, SX220, Gorillapod ;)
Wanted: 77mm or 72mm ND500 filter, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 150-500

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iqbal624
Goldmember
Avatar
1,574 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Washington State, USA
     
Feb 02, 2011 05:22 |  #4

It all comes down to: do you need that extra stop of light? I personally couldn't do without 2.8... So that's why I didn't get the f4. I've used the f4 IS before and it's a great lens, just not for me.

If you dont need the extra stop, get the f4, it's cheaper, lighter, sharper and has better IS... but it doesn't have 2.8...

Goodluck!


5d2 | | 50L | 28 1.8 | |
MacBook Pro 15 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
muskyhunter
Goldmember
Avatar
1,137 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 03, 2011 10:34 |  #5

The question is do you need f2.8. If you do then get the best lens you can afford with that in mind. Be it the 2.8L, 2.8L IS, or 2.8L IS II.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djre4orm
Member
39 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Feb 03, 2011 14:18 |  #6

I would try to check both of them out at a local store. See if you can bring your body, take some snaps, then go home to compare.

I just got the 70-200mm II and love it, but damn if it wasn't cumbersome to carry around during an auto race. I recommend getting a black rapid strap and leaving it hanging at your waist. The mkI is very close in size, but I just saw the f4 in person and that thing is compact. Makes me wonder if I would get more use on trips and vacation with something that size vs the massive 2.8 mkII




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Feb 03, 2011 14:45 |  #7

F4 IS is a great lens and so is F2.8 IS.
You will be happy with either one of them.
However in the end.. F2.8 IS will win it out most likely than not.


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Refresh ­ Image
Senior Member
557 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Feb 03, 2011 15:15 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Porkywill wrote in post #11761407 (external link)
I'm not that worries about weight as I won't be carrying the lens around with me all that often. I want it to be sharp and fast, but the f/4 seems to be such a good lens, I just wondered whether it was better to get the f/4 if the f/2.8 II is not an option or whether, for not that much more, I should be looking at the f/2.8 I?
Thanks,
Will

You will not see the difference in sharpness between these two lenses for any real life situation unless you do controlled shots of resolution charts. Even than it is difficult and copy to copy variations could just revers for two particular lenses.

The difference boils down to the weight and size ( you do not care about those) and price ( I do not believe you do not care about that).




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

1,843 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs f/2.8 IS mk1
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is quickcashfundingcartitleloans
1014 guests, 229 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.