adding a 70-200 II?

ever since I bougth the f4IS I've had that itch to get the 2.8, then I pack my gear and realize it would never fit in any of my 3 bags with all the other gear AND it would add quite some weight.

I don't shoot events or concerts etc, never would dream of shooting weddings, so there's really no benefit for me. I'd add significant weight and cost, money I could use for something else. There's still room for one lens not the size of a Canon canon in my bag, once I sell my 60mm macro. Either something wider than my 24-70 or something fixed.

You really have to ask yourself if the extra stop is something you will need more than occasionally. You'll also stand out much more with that big lens, I find the f4 already big enough, the 2.8 would create even more stupid comments by others, LOL

IQ is fantastic on my lens, I can't imagine the 2.8 doing anything better worth the extra money and weight. Not for anything I take pictures of. I see it more as a specialized lens for those that actually need the extra stop. I'm not into birding etc, or I'd get something with more reach than 200 anyway.

You could always rent one for a weekend and play with it, go for a hike or what ever you like doing and see how it compares.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16185815
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....

Haha, you're going through the same thing I did. I'll say this much...those in this thread that went from 70-200 f/4 (non IS) to MKII, prolly did notice a big improvement in IQ. From the f/4IS, I'm not sure. I definitely don't.

Check out this thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1312355

After having owned both, I agree with the general consensus.

Owned the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1, 4.0 IS, and now the mk2. The 4.0 IS saturation tend to be on the cold side but it was good overall. My mk2 copy is slightly sharper across the range than the 4.0 IS but the extra stop diffuse the background more so I like it better for portraiture. but not my choice for hiking though.

Its worth the cost / weight... Really.

Its not that heavy... If you're concerned about it, also grab a Black-Rapid Strap, the weight will disappear!

When I Camp and Hike/Portage, I carry a 300 Prime & the 70-200 along with a Canoe and a backpack... Its not so bad

I have the 70-200 tamron and just bought the b-grip system three weeks ago. Works great for me. I do a fair amount of hiking and have no issues with the weight. Comfortable and no strap to mess with. Do it.

I used to have the non-IS version of the f2.8, and found it a real pain to carry around on family activities. In the end, I left it at home more often than not, just so I wouldn't have to deal with the weight of the lens in addition to everything else kids seem to need on outings! I now have the f4 IS and am much happier. I would not go back to a f2.8; the f4 IS gives outstanding image quality and I can count on one hand the number of times I've missed the f2.8 capability.

If I was making a lot of money from my photography, or regularly photographing low-light events (sports, weddings, etc.), then it would be another matter. But for family photography it's hard to beat the f4 IS.

Sigma 70-200 is a good alternative. If you don't need low light performance, the f4 non is is a good bargain, even a used one.

geparry wrote in post #16185590
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.

again - willingness isn't really the problem. It is a "negative" and I would be foolish not to recognize that there will be days that the weight will be a factor that will cause me not to take it. There will also be days that it would not be a factor and I would insist on taking it. I usually take a bag full of lenses and switch in the field acording to what I am shooting/doing... so the added weight will be noticed...as well as the bulk.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16185677
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.

the last part of your statement is what has me still entranced with the lens, to tell you the truth. I can deal with the "chore" at the family event... IF I am going to get a better product.... I am still working on that issue....

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16185755
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 make the choice for me and them! or me and me. me the photographer and me the husband/father/brohter in law etc who is unofficially responsible for many of the photography of the family events (just because I am always carrying my gear everywhere) - and the 1 stop is in part one of the main differences according to many people....
I don't think I am ready to jump into the waters of multiple fast primes yet. thanks.

carguy4471 wrote in post #16185781
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.

thanks for your input. If I understand correctly, the F4non-is has a slightly different IQ than the IS version. But I take your comments about the size appropriately. Thanks for your time.

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16185804
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.

thanks for your experiences and honesty. I have to say that I do enjoy the f4IS but I do have young kids and they do have their recitals, concerts shows and from time to time I do miss the f2.8 - see that is the rub "from time-to-time"...not all the time..... and hence the way I satrted the original post - "I have a dilemma"

but if i get it - it seems the next place I will be "trolling" is the "which bag should I get " posts!

Similar to OP I have young kids myself, and I used to own f4 IS and now the f2.8II.

Why? Well it's more about 'want' than 'need'. I simply hate being limited to f4! I love shooting portrait @ 200mm and when my daughter is on the move, it means my shutter speed needs to be fast (1/400s+), you'd be surpised how much light you really need to be able to afford ISO100, 1/400 and f4. That one stop difference certainly help, and the more blurred background doesn't hurt either.

Now size and weight. Personally the weight doesn't bother me at all (I am in my early 30s', and I gym 5 days a week), the size however does bother me a little, espeically when I have to pull it out in public places. But honestly the general people won't care about the size difference between the f4 IS and f2.8II because to them they are all excessively huge

Overall, I won't go back to f4 IS ever, the f2.8II is staying

phantelope wrote in post #16185935
ever since I bougth the f4IS I've had that itch to get the 2.8, then I pack my gear and realize it would never fit in any of my 3 bags with all the other gear AND it would add quite some weight.

I don't shoot events or concerts etc, never would dream of shooting weddings, so there's really no benefit for me. I'd add significant weight and cost, money I could use for something else. There's still room for one lens not the size of a Canon canon in my bag, once I sell my 60mm macro. Either something wider than my 24-70 or something fixed.

You really have to ask yourself if the extra stop is something you will need more than occasionally. You'll also stand out much more with that big lens, I find the f4 already big enough, the 2.8 would create even more stupid comments by others, LOL

IQ is fantastic on my lens, I can't imagine the 2.8 doing anything better worth the extra money and weight. Not for anything I take pictures of. I see it more as a specialized lens for those that actually need the extra stop. I'm not into birding etc, or I'd get something with more reach than 200 anyway.

You could always rent one for a weekend and play with it, go for a hike or what ever you like doing and see how it compares.

LOL. you sound just lke me on centain days ! (or I sound like you...whichever you prefer). the only thing I can say is that I have the events of the kids and the unofficial events of the family to take care of. thanks for your time to answer.

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16185967
Haha, you're going through the same thing I did. I'll say this much...those in this thread that went from 70-200 f/4 (non IS) to MKII, prolly did notice a big improvement in IQ. From the f/4IS, I'm not sure. I definitely don't.

Check out this thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1312355

After having owned both, I agree with the general consensus.

thanks for the link and your answer. this is what i am generally afraid of - the build up being more than the product!

ben805 wrote in post #16186140
Owned the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1, 4.0 IS, and now the mk2. The 4.0 IS saturation tend to be on the cold side but it was good overall. My mk2 copy is slightly sharper across the range than the 4.0 IS but the extra stop diffuse the background more so I like it better for portraiture. but not my choice for hiking though.

thanks for your experience. do you find the diffuse background better to your taste at f2.8 only? or are you comparing the 2.8II and the 4.0IS at f4.0, 5.6 etc as well?

DanAnCan wrote in post #16186145
Its worth the cost / weight... Really.

Its not that heavy... If you're concerned about it, also grab a Black-Rapid Strap, the weight will disappear!

When I Camp and Hike/Portage, I carry a 300 Prime & the 70-200 along with a Canoe and a backpack... Its not so bad

thanks. just a canoe? too bad it isn't a catamaran! (just kidding! )

Davd901 wrote in post #16186308
I have the 70-200 tamron and just bought the b-grip system three weeks ago. Works great for me. I do a fair amount of hiking and have no issues with the weight. Comfortable and no strap to mess with. Do it.

i just looked up that system since I hadn't heard of it. With all due respect, if I ever used it around my family I believe my children would poke fun at me from here until my (very early) death! They wouldn't let me see or speak to their friends and basically annoy me to the end of time! (only said tongue and cheek!)

ceegee wrote in post #16186404
I used to have the non-IS version of the f2.8, and found it a real pain to carry around on family activities. In the end, I left it at home more often than not, just so I wouldn't have to deal with the weight of the lens in addition to everything else kids seem to need on outings! I now have the f4 IS and am much happier. I would not go back to a f2.8; the f4 IS gives outstanding image quality and I can count on one hand the number of times I've missed the f2.8 capability.

If I was making a lot of money from my photography, or regularly photographing low-light events (sports, weddings, etc.), then it would be another matter. But for family photography it's hard to beat the f4 IS.

thanks for the above. Again you brought up some real concerns
it is amazing how many people are for the f4IS for the same reasons!

mesakid wrote in post #16186423
Sigma 70-200 is a good alternative. If you don't need low light performance, the f4 non is is a good bargain, even a used one.

thanks for your time
i am not necessarily looking at alternatives or good bargains since i already have the f4IS and I can easily afford the 2.8 II - i am trying to decide if I want to cart it around....
but thanks for your time in answering my question

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16185298
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....

Ohh boy!

Well, the 70-200 IS2 is the best lens I've used. Best in all senses. When I had a 7D it never left that camera body. You could have your 7D's AA filter removed and still not out-resolve this lens. It's truly truly, canons best lens(and most definitely better than anything canon makes in the 70-200 range, that includes the 135, folks- stop whining).

In a rather silly desire for nose bleeding resolution I sold all of my canon stuff except the 70-200IS2 and bought a mamiya RZ and a digital back. That is what it took to get better resolving power than the 70-200 IS2 may(and shall) afford you.

Not to mention it's lightning quick focusing. And image stabilized.

Did I mention it's sharp?

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is an excellent lens...

But if the size, weight and intimidation factors worry you - and since you are keeping your f4 lens - there are some good alternatives.

For $1000 less money, you could get a 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. Two or three stops faster than your f4 lens (rarther than one stop). Fast focusing, good image quality, compact, less intrusive and likely better for candid shooting. All three of these primes work very nicely on a 7D (APS-C).

A 135/2L is another possibility, depending upon your needs and budget. It works well with a 1.4X teleconverter, to give you an effective 189/2.8. Or look at a 200/2.8L II. It would be nice to have IS on the 135mm and 200mm, particularly when using them on a crop camera. But with normal care in handling these can be superb lenses too.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16188335
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is an excellent lens...

But if the size, weight and intimidation factors worry you - and since you are keeping your f4 lens - there are some good alternatives.

For $1000 less money, you could get a 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. Two or three stops faster than your f4 lens (rarther than one stop). Fast focusing, good image quality, compact, less intrusive and likely better for candid shooting. All three of these primes work very nicely on a 7D (APS-C).

A 135/2L is another possibility, depending upon your needs and budget. It works well with a 1.4X teleconverter, to give you an effective 189/2.8. Or look at a 200/2.8L II. It would be nice to have IS on the 135mm and 200mm, particularly when using them on a crop camera. But with normal care in handling these can be superb lenses too.

I concur, if you want a lightweight lens that will give you excellent subject separation, the 135L/200L are a great option.

I will add my thoughts. It sounds like you and I have gone through the same situation. I am the family photog. My gear goes with me. Lately, I have been taking mostly pics of the family and my grandsons--age 3 and 1. I have the 70-200f4IS. It is my least used lens, but I keep it because it is sharp and I don't like to sell a lens I may use.

Weight, size or comments from people is not an issue. Frankly, I don't understand the comments problem or the "large white issue" problem. I have never had any issues. My main camera, 1dm4, generally has my 100-400 attached and I carry it all day at airshows and or surfing competitions, so weight etc no issue.

My grandson started to play hockey and the f4 was not fast enough. The lens to get was the 70-200f2.8v2. Money was not an issue. As an aside, I had friends who had the 2.8v2 and they kept telling me how incredible it was. I just didn't think it could be much of an improvement over my f4--plus I rarely used it.

Different people have different thoughts on the comparison of these two lens. In my case, the differences are very pronounced. It is sharper at 2.8 then the f4 is at f4. The pics pop with better contrast and colors. I fought against getting this lens. However, I am so impressed with the pics, I am sorry I didn't buy it sooner. It has become my favorite lens and I now use it as my walk around lens and look for any reason to shoot with it. I shoot at 2.8 with no hesitation at 200 and enjoy the OOF area, sharpness and color and contrast. Plus it helps to keep up the speed for the grandchildren.

I will keep my f4is, even though I might only use it once a year. In my humble opinion, If the money and weight are not an issue, I would encourage you to buy it now.

Cheers, Steve

I take my 70-200 to the zoo all the time and it does get tiring but it's totally worth it. I might recommend like a harness rather than a strap...my biggest issue is the weight gets distributed on one shoulder or the other and the uneven weight bothers my back after a while. It's an amazing lens.