adding a 70-200 II?

hey all

i am in a type of dilemma
i have the below lenses and I am generally happy with them
i do sometimes miss not having the extra stop of the 2.8 in most of f4 choices, but usually I make-do.

with that said, there are times that i wonder whether the 70-200II would be a more valuable addition to my lens collection.

so my pro/con list

pro:
excellent IQ
f2.8
my f4 sometime acts up sporadically

con:
heavy for hiking with the kids and wife
ridicule from the kids - geez dad...do you you have to use a bazooka as a camera? (no, for them, it NEVER gets old)
for $2200 is one stop REALLY worth it? I mean....REALLY?

so for those of you who have moved from the f4IS to the 2.8II, do you miss the size of the f4? do you get shots that you otherwise wouldn;t have gotten withthe f4? I am not sure which way I am trying to convince myself yet...so your REASONED help would be really appreciated!

i had originally thought to save for the canon version of the 14-24 f2.8 - but I see that it is more and more a pipe dream....

I was in a similar situation. I just returned from a trip where we did some challenging hikes and I lugged along my 70-200II, 24-105 and 5d markIII. It was a very heavy load but I am used to being a pack mule. For me, there is no question about the stunning beauty that I obtain from the 70-200. I switched back and forth with the 24-105 and after looking through the photos, the 70-200 has distinct advantages in quality that especially showed up when I was shooting in medium to low light. The quality difference narrows when you have good light but is still there. I decided that from now on I am using the 70-200 as my primary lens in spite of the weight

I just sold my 70-200 f4 (non IS) and although I enjoyed the photos it took, they really don't have the same quality as my new lens. One caveat is that the IS version might be a bit better than the non IS version. I was also very fortunate to buy the 70-200II barely used for $1700 and was thus able to justify the purchase. If money is not a big concern, then you would probably be happy with the lens. I would not buy it if it were to stretch your budget.

Regarding the one extra stop, for me the advantage is in the additional autofocus boost and for really low light. Having a 5d III has resulted in not needing to worry about low light as much and instead having to worry about too narrow a depth of field. Ironically enough, I found that I like setting the aperture at 4.0 for general shooting because when you fill the frame with your subject, the depth of field is significantly different than with the APS-C. However, when I have time to carefully compose the shot or when I am not filling the frame, I have used the f2.8 for great effect. With a 7d the extra stop will be more significant for lower light, your center focus point will be more accurate, and you will likely find yourself using f2.8 most of the time because your depth of filed isn't going to be as sensitive to mistakes.

Sell the 70-200 f4is and you can get the sigma OS for the money you sold it for. Voila!

I love my sigma 70-200 2.8 OS so much more than I ever liked my 70-200 f4 IS.

When I contemplated which 70-200 to buy, the decision process didn't take long. I got the 70-200 II and I rarely use it because of the weight of the lens. Don't get me wrong, it's a very sharp lens and for indoor use, it's the one to get. But....if you have a gripped 5D III and the 70-200 II attached, you will notice the weight when hiking for any distance.

Now I'm looking to buy a good used 70-200 4 IS and probably keep the 70-200 II but if I was doing it all over again knowing what I know now, I would buy the 70-200 4 IS and the 70-300L for the price of the 70-200 II.

notastockpikr wrote in post #16185453
When I contemplated which 70-200 to buy, the decision process didn't take long. I got the 70-200 II and I rarely use it because of the weight of the lens. Don't get me wrong, it's a very sharp lens and for indoor use, it's the one to get. But....if you have a gripped 5D III and the 70-200 II attached, you will notice the weight when hiking for any distance.

Now I'm looking to buy a good used 70-200 4 IS and probably keep the 70-200 II but if I was doing it all over again knowing what I know now, I would buy the 70-200 4 IS and the 70-300L for the price of the 70-200 II.

everytime I think of 70-200, I just remember 100-400 and how heavy that sucker was.... no thanks. The tamron 70-200 VC looks to be the better buy at this point, but also too heavy.

I'de much rather have the 70-300L for versatility and 135L for bokeh machine.

thanks for the answers. i don't plan on selling my f4IS whatsoever for the times that I want a lighter lens anyway (notastockpikr makes the point here quite nicely) - I have the funds to do that - and if I really wanted to get rid of the lens - I can always give it to my brother.....(as I mentioned in the text of the question: "adding a 70-200II")
***
i am open to more opinions please!!!

love or hate
hot or cold
weight or quality
I love it for wedding b/c of the flexibility + IS + IQ. If you do not shoot event/wedding, there are many other choices which are lighter and smaller instead. Please keep in mind that it is ~3.5 lbs, your legs and back will hate you from the middle of your hiking trip. My legs and back hate me after every wedding

I think it might come down to your willingness to carry weight on your hikes. Some would probably think I am crazy, I once took a 40D with the 300 F4 and 24-105 lenses backpacking in the Rocky mountains. For me the extra weight just doesn't bother me that much (in fact I look at it giving me a better workout), and the extra effort is paid off with higher quality photos.

I agree with both posts above. Its a great lens for event shooters but IMO using it for casual family photography is a pain. I loved the image quality but taking it out was always a chore and most of the time it stood home.

If size/weight is a none issue you will love it.

drzenitram wrote in post #16185413
Sell the 70-200 f4is and you can get the sigma OS for the money you sold it for. Voila!

I love my sigma 70-200 2.8 OS so much more than I ever liked my 70-200 f4 IS.

I never had the Canon f/4, but I really enjoy my Sigma 2.8 OS. The new Tamron VC is reportedly better, but costs 50% more than the Sigma.

If the goal is the stop and you only need it for specific outings, supplement with a 135 or 200 2.8

If the goal is IQ, nothing else will do

But are you making this choice for you or them?

I had the f4 non-is, loved the image quality and the size. Sold it and got the 2.8is II, image quality is mind blowing. Yup, it's big and heavy, and worth carrying the extra weight to me. With a quality strap I don't notice the weight. I am only burdened by it if it's in my bag with three other lenses. If it's the only lens I need, or I'm only carrying my 17-50 and 70-200 I don't really mind it. The lens is bloody amazing by any measure and I'm happy to endure the size and weight for the output I get. I've never once looked at the photos I've taken with it and thought of how much of a pain it was to carry all day.

I've owned the 70-200MKII twice (Once when it first came out, then again after I got back into photography after selling off all my gear). I now own the 70-200 f/4IS. For me, the price, size, and weight is just not worth the one stop difference. Don't get me wrong, if there was an IQ improvement I'd suck it up, but there isn't.

IQ was the reason I was hesitant to buy the 70-200 f/4IS in the first place. People always said the IQ between these two lenses was identical, but when I looked in the lens sample thread, it just didn't look to be the case. After getting the f/4IS, I realize the image quality really is identical. It turns out the quality of pictures in the sample threads have more to do with the photographers who own each lens, rather than the lens itself.

Unless you are going to be using it for concerts, shows, kid's performances...i wouldn't do it.

willingness is not the question - but I do question (at least a little bit)
whether or not the quality of the pics of the 70-200 II vs 70-200 f4IS
at f4, 5.6, 7.1 8 is better.... (clearly at f2.8 it *IS* the winner!)
and worth the carrying the extra weight.
I too don't mind being the "mule" of the family.... (i usually am)

Thanks for this thread. I have taken some good information from each post.

I too am looking at upgrading my 70-200 f4 (non-IS) to either the f4 IS or possible the f2.8 II IS. I really want an IS version and I am kicking myself for not buying one in the first place...

I like shooting is natural/low light situations and the f4 struggles at times with that. I am thinking the f2.8 would help more for those situations... I just wish the price was not so stupid high...