adding a 70-200 II?

I have owned all three of Canon's 70-200 f/ 2.8Ls. Carried one all the time. Wouldn't be without one.
Never owned a 70-200 f/4.

I have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
Like you I decided to keep the f/4 IS when I purchased the 2.8 II. Why some will ask? One, a great back up, you never know. Two, superb image quality. And three, it really is a lot lighter. Now being 50, you really appreciate the lighter weight option this allows me to make.
This choice made me think as I am packing for a flight to Germany this afternoon. Go light f/4 or 2.8? For me, 2.8 as I don't mind the additional weight and having the additional stop. In a few years, the f/4 option may start winning out. Since we are in the same situation of keeping the wonderful f/4 L IS, how can I argue against you in purchasing the f/2.8 II. Go for it!

kin2son wrote in post #16187611
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

now the scales are tipping the other way!! LOL
Thanks Kin2son! I usually enjoy reading your insights.
I, unlike you, have no time to "gym 5 days a week" but I am sure that if there is a "want" there is a "way".(neither am I in my early 30s...but we also don't need to go there...)
The weight is a part of 2 aspects - both the active weight - while using the lens on the camera - and the passive weight - while carting it around in my travel camera bag when I am not using it but I *might* use later on!

pyrojim wrote in post #16187634
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?

my goodness. that *IS* a vote of confidence. thanks.

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.

an interesting idea indeed. thanks. it may be an idea I will adopt a bit later. I don't think I am at a place in my photography yet to utilize a slew of primes correctly. I need more shooting hours, IMHO. and more experience. and I expect that I will only start with one.

but I think that your above used word is probably the most correct word. I see the lens as intimidating. to me. to the surroundings. Now that I (you) have identified it...I think it is something I can work with. Thanks a LOT! (no sarcasm - real statement)

drzenitram wrote in post #16188674
I concur, if you want a lightweight lens that will give you excellent subject separation, the 135L/200L are a great option.

thanks for your time to answer. see above.

pssc wrote in post #16189521
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

thanks a lot for this personal and detailed account. This sounds very much like my dilemma in regards to my mental processes if not the exact details. y'all are really starting to convince me!

But it does seem that your accounts of the sharpness of your copy of the v2 vs you f4IS is more dramatic than other accounts. There are those out there who see the vs at f4 equal to the f4IS at f4. and hence the only gain they see is the ability to take a sharp picture at f2.8. It makes me wonder if 1.) there is such a variability between the lenses or 2.) there is a variability between the eyes of the judges....

Jensgt wrote in post #16189893
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.

if I get this lens - I can imagine myself getting a strap that won't be a neck strap and maybe even a bag that won't be a side bag. though I have yet to do some real research on the idea yet.

Nick5 wrote in post #16191076
I have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
Like you I decided to keep the f/4 IS when I purchased the 2.8 II. Why some will ask? One, a great back up, you never know. Two, superb image quality. And three, it really is a lot lighter. Now being 50, you really appreciate the lighter weight option this allows me to make.
This choice made me think as I am packing for a flight to Germany this afternoon. Go light f/4 or 2.8? For me, 2.8 as I don't mind the additional weight and having the additional stop. In a few years, the f/4 option may start winning out. Since we are in the same situation of keeping the wonderful f/4 L IS, how can I argue against you in purchasing the f/2.8 II. Go for it!

I didn't realize how many people were in the same boat I was!
as above - y'all are starting to get to me already!
and for the record - I am much closer to your age than kin2son's!
which makes your statement a lot more relevant!

anyway - thanks all for all your help!

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 bet if and when you try to sell you Sigma 70-200 OS, you will love your Canon F4 IS more.

Last year, the lowest price of Sigma 70-200 OS was around 1399+ tax. This year the lowest so far is just below 1100+tax I think.

Other thing to consider is the customer serivce provided from both of them. I mean Which one is better ?

little johny wrote in post #16194091
I bet if and when you try to sell you Sigma 70-200 OS, you will love your Canon F4 IS more.

Last year, the lowest price of Sigma 70-200 OS was around 1399+ tax. This year the lowest so far is just below 1100+tax I think.

Other thing to consider is the customer serivce provided from both of them. I mean Which one is better ?

I bought my sigma 70-200 OS a year ago for $950, currently they're going for $1000 used. Bought my canon 70-200 f4 IS for $1100, could only sell it for $950 a few months later. These days the canon 70-200 f4 IS is selling for $850 used. Looks like my sigma held its value better!

Also, my 70-200 OS has a 5 year warranty. Canon has a 1 year warranty. The only time I've ever sent a lens in to Sigma I got it back in 4 days in perfect working condition at no cost to me.

How ya like 'dem apples?

drzenitram wrote in post #16194130
I
How ya like 'dem apples?

I say you are a very lucky person.

Not to be a thread thief or anything but I dont want to make a new thread for relatively the same question.

I'm on the other end of OP and is doing more travel/event/wedding photos in the upcoming future. Would trading my F4IS + 135L for the MKII be a good choice? Size does not matter..

x0ny wrote in post #16194223
Not to be a thread thief or anything but I dont want to make a new thread for relatively the same question.

I'm on the other end of OP and is doing more travel/event/wedding photos in the upcoming future. Would trading my F4IS + 135L for the MKII be a good choice? Size does not matter..

Yes. For event/wedding photography you can't beat the versatility of a 70-200 2.8 zoom with stabilization. If I were you, though, I would really just sell the f4 is and get the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. Keep the 135L for the creamy bokehliciousness, or sell it and you'll have cash for a different lens.

I am trying to decide between Tamron, Sigma, and Canon.
If money was no issue I would choose the Canon... So that leaves me with Tamron vs Sigma since I am not a professional and just do this for fun.

I have read numerous tests that mention that Sigma wide open at 2.8 is not very sharp and needs to be stopped down to at least 3.2 or 3.5. While the Tamron is very sharp wide open...

This is obviously a big concern since I am getting a 2.8 specifically to shoot at 2.8!!!
Anyone have some experience with both?

I haul my 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) all over the place on my 1D with my family. I love the lens, and the weight I can handle without discomfort.

Note that the ~$1200 difference between the non-IS and the ISii is mostly IQ, IS, and weather sealing. Whether that's worth it or not is up to you, but I love the sharp images I get out of my non-IS, even though it doesn't technically perform as well as the ISii.

The value of the extra stop is not just for light gathering, but also the subject isolation through a shallower DoF, and that is worth more to me than IS on an f/4 for the same money.

Lexar wrote in post #16194349
I am trying to decide between Tamron, Sigma, and Canon.
If money was no issue I would choose the Canon... So that leaves me with Tamron vs Sigma since I am not a professional and just do this for fun.

I have read numerous tests that mention that Sigma wide open at 2.8 is not very sharp and needs to be stopped down to at least 3.2 or 3.5. While the Tamron is very sharp wide open...

This is obviously a big concern since I am getting a 2.8 specifically to shoot at 2.8!!!
Anyone have some experience with both?

Mat Grainger (Nikon Guy) just did an extensive review on these lenses. According to the pics he showed, Tamron edges out the might Canon in sharpness. It seems to be tack sharp wide open, IS is as good as the Canon and has much improved build quality over its predecessor.

It does seem to have issues with vignetting, but that isn't something that can't be taken care of in post. It is now a very viable option to the Canon considering what it offers at half the price. I would have looked at it more seriously if it had been around the time I purchased my F4L IS. The F4L IS is a magical lens to me, its so light and portable also, I never leave home without it.