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 06 May 2012 (Sunday) 00:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

canon 70-200 f4 IS vs canon 70-200 f2.8ii IS

 
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2076
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 11, 2012 10:50 |  #31

This has been discussed many times before. Wide open F4L IS is a hair sharper than the F2.8L MK II. No lens is perfect, it really depends on what your needs and usage patterns are like. As far as I am concerned, weight is important, 70-200 F4L IS + 24-70 F2.8 MK II weigh the same are 70-200 F2.8L MK II. Now to some that's not an issue, to me it is so I opted for the lighter and just as sharp F4L IS. Sometimes I think of upgrading but the weight/size factor is a deterrent.

Then again, if one's a professional shooting wedding and/or events, needs that F2.8 then the weight becomes secondary.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Blubayou
Senior Member
366 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
     
Dec 11, 2012 14:22 |  #32

I just bought the MKII, having only shot a few times with the 2.8 MKI IS previously. While the size/weight of the f4 was more appealing, I've been enjoying the MKII so far and haven't find the weight to be a deterrent so far.

I wanted the fastest shutter speeds I could get in a zoom (3 young, fast kids + sports) and I may second shoot a wedding or two this year. I figure the advantage of 2.8 may show itself there and would probably pay for itself. I may set it to f4 and leave it there for a while to see if I ever feel the need for f2.8. If I do, my purchase is justified. If I don't, I may consider slipping it for the f4 IS and applying the difference to something else.

I just liquidated some belongings from one of my other hobbies (cars) so I paid off a few bills then bought myself this consolation gift. Since I'll be primarily using it for capturing my kids' childhood adventures and perhaps making a few bucks from a wedding here and there, I can live with the cost.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Blubayou
Senior Member
366 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
     
Dec 11, 2012 14:23 |  #33

forgot to add, the weight may be a factor, but to me, the size is not. Both are white and fairly large to the layperson.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
intence01
Member
144 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2011
     
Dec 11, 2012 17:49 |  #34

Sorry to jump in, but is the 70-200mm f2.8 Non-IS worth considering? Price-wise it's much less costly than the IS version, and you can go wide open to f/2.8. Any disadvantage going this route?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
treck_dialect
Senior Member
Avatar
689 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: QC Philippines
     
Dec 11, 2012 18:07 |  #35

intence01 wrote in post #15355012 (external link)
Sorry to jump in, but is the 70-200mm f2.8 Non-IS worth considering? Price-wise it's much less costly than the IS version, and you can go wide open to f/2.8. Any disadvantage going this route?

yes its worth considering also. just remember if youre shooting in low light that the general rule of thumb to shoot images without motion blur is 1 second over your focal length. IS might help out with that.


well hello
http://aleccorpuz.word​press.com/ (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,600 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 673
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Dec 11, 2012 19:30 as a reply to  @ treck_dialect's post |  #36

You would have to do some serious pixel peeping to see a difference in IQ between the 2 lenses. If the f4 to f2.8 makes a $1000 difference to you then by all means, be my guest. For most it seems to be more a case of getting bragging rights than any real need. As a hobbyist, I've been thrilled with my f4 IS, no way I'd pay a grand for one f-stop without a professional need.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Dec 11, 2012 20:08 |  #37

Preeb wrote in post #15355426 (external link)
You would have to do some serious pixel peeping to see a difference in IQ between the 2 lenses. If the f4 to f2.8 makes a $1000 difference to you then by all means, be my guest. For most it seems to be more a case of getting bragging rights than any real need. As a hobbyist, I've been thrilled with my f4 IS, no way I'd pay a grand for one f-stop without a professional need.

Well as a hobbyist myself, there definitely have been times where that stop would have been really useful. Buy yeah $1000 is a crap load of money for a hobby. Also one could buy a 135/2 with the difference and get 2 stops in the middle of the zoom range.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Blubayou
Senior Member
366 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
     
Dec 11, 2012 21:57 |  #38

I considered the f4 IS + 135L combo instead of the mkii, but eventually decided I'd rather have as much as possible in one lens vs 2 lenses that each did most of what I was after (one lacking faster aperture, the other lacking zoom and IS).

At the end of the day, these are all great lenses and they maintain their value very well. Pick whichever you're leaning toward and have fun with it. If you find it lacking, swap it for something else that fills that void.

The $1000 difference wasn't a major factor for me after seeing what quality glass sells for on the used market. It sounds expensive on the surface, but it's a lot easier to get a good portion of that $ back if you decide to cash out. That's not so easy with other hobbies!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,600 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 673
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Dec 12, 2012 08:30 |  #39

Blubayou wrote in post #15355898 (external link)
The $1000 difference wasn't a major factor for me after seeing what quality glass sells for on the used market. It sounds expensive on the surface, but it's a lot easier to get a good portion of that $ back if you decide to cash out. That's not so easy with other hobbies!

This is a big difference between you and me. I try to do the research, buy what I need, then I keep it. My 70-200 f4 IS will probably be passed on to my heirs. What it is worth on the used market isn't even a consideration for me for any of my lenses. I did that one time with a 17-40 L, sold it and bought the 17-55 f2.8. Never even considered selling another one.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Dec 12, 2012 11:21 |  #40

Blubayou wrote in post #15355898 (external link)
I considered the f4 IS + 135L combo instead of the mkii, but eventually decided I'd rather have as much as possible in one lens vs 2 lenses that each did most of what I was after (one lacking faster aperture, the other lacking zoom and IS).

This is an internal struggle for me. I worry about just not using the 135/2 much, at least not enough to justify the $1000. I feel I would just grab the 70-200/4 IS for the versatility instead. If I sold the 70-200/4 and traded up to the II, I think I would get more usage out of it than the f4 because I probably would use the II in a lot of situationa I would now grab my 85/1.8.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdrober2
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Dec 12, 2012 11:44 |  #41

xenophobe wrote in post #14386734 (external link)
All of the 70-200L's are great. Pick the one that suits your budget and needs. Don't discount the 70-300L. It doesn't have a fixed aperture but it does have 100mm more reach, is smaller, has the newest design, and is supposedly sharper than the 70-200 w/TC. I wouldn't buy the 70-200 over the 70-300 mainly because of size and what you get at the long end. The 70-200's are sharper in their range, but not by much... at least not enough for me to justify a bigger lens with shorter reach.

I have the 70-300L and have been so amazed with the IQ, even wide open at both ends of the range.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 12, 2012 12:10 |  #42

I used the F/4 IS for years and when the MKII first came out I picked one up but just couldn't justify the weight and bulk, especially since most of my shots were outside at the time so I returned it and kept the F/4.

When I started to do more event work last year I picked up the 2.8 MKII. Its a big and heavy lens but if you need 2.8 then its key. IQ between the two is the same from F/4 up. The 2.8 is much better at 2.8 than the F4




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
white ­ venom
Goldmember
Avatar
1,313 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1203
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
     
Dec 12, 2012 15:13 |  #43

I was just deciding between the 2 myself and decided to get the mk2. figured i would have this lens for a long time and it would serve the needs for anything I will need and I am doing a couple of weddingf this upcoming year so it will come in handy


Gear List~Website (external link)~Facebook (external link)~500px (external link)~flickr (external link)
Feedback-1 2345

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

7,364 views & 0 likes for this thread
canon 70-200 f4 IS vs canon 70-200 f2.8ii IS
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 vttnguyen
1144 guests, 293 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.