Looking upgrade from 70-200 f/4 to what?

If you do portraits get the 135L instead

If you just need the IQ and not f/2.8 (i.e. not shooting sports in dimly lit conditions), go for that f/4 IS. This lens is crazy good. I recently moved here from Nikon and had their version before. Even though Nikon's is a much newer model, it can't hold a candle to the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I was quite surprised.

I'm on my second copy now....

and I'm fixing to sell mine. Once you live at 1.4-2 anything F4 is boring.

Two things to consider. 1) the 2.8 weighs so much kore than the f4. It doesn't seem like it, but after 10 mins you notice it so much. 2) my 70-200 2.8 IS was no better optically than my f4 non IS. The f4 IS that I tested in store blew them both away.

Also, I agree with the 135L recommendation for portraits.

I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

^ Congrats. Wonder what happened to the hood.

I actually have the F/4 IS and will be going for the 2.8 MKii ( I had this before) as soon as I can. On review from my shots with the 2.8 II from last year and the current F/4 IS there's more than just IQ to drool over. Colours and contrast seemed to be better.

I'm a better photographer now than I was when I had the 2.8 and didn't appreciate it on crop sensor, but now I have FF I think it would be the best decision to get it. Helps the AF do what it was meant to as well in my opinion.

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

I sold my 70-200 f2.8 IS II due to the weight and bulk. Replaced with 135 L and 70-200- f/4 IS, which make a great combo. I think you will be very happy with that setup along with your other lenses in your sig.

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

I have that same combo -- 70-200 f/4 IS and 135L -- and really like it. The 70-200 f/4 is smaller and lighter (and less expensive) than the f/2.8 version, while the 135L gives you the larger aperture when you need it (in a smaller package, too). Most of the time f/4 is enough for what I shoot.

I'll be the first to admit that the f/2.8 can challenge the wrists on occasion. And considering that volume varies with the square of the diameter, the f/2.8 takes up a fair bit more room in a bag.

But the IS in the Mark II f/2.8 is about as good as it gets for hand-holding, and the focusing speed (on my really "hot" 5DII) is very good.

Everything has pros/cons - it's all about trade-offs.

boywonder27 wrote in post #17202782
I got the f/4 IS USM tonight $800, looks to be in real good condition. No Hood tho. I ordered on of ebay $6.

Im also selling my 24-105, and actually think Ill use the money for 135L

Let us know how you like it.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is my go-to lens in most situations. If I have room to work - even if it means putting my back against the wall - that's the lens I'm going to use.

f/4 is plenty for most things I shoot, especially portraiture. It's rare that I want to shoot a portrait in any wider aperture than that.

I haven't used the f/2.8 IS II. I'm sure it's excellent - for twice the price. In the meantime, subjective concerns such as "color rendition and contrast" can usually be resolved with appropriate post-processing.

I'd like to give the 135L and the 85L a try, too, but right now they wouldn't return the investment, they'd just be toys without any business justification.

nathancarter wrote in post #17203923
Let us know how you like it.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is my go-to lens in most situations. If I have room to work - even if it means putting my back against the wall - that's the lens I'm going to use.

f/4 is plenty for most things I shoot, especially portraiture. It's rare that I want to shoot a portrait in any wider aperture than that.

I haven't used the f/2.8 IS II. I'm sure it's excellent - for twice the price. In the meantime, subjective concerns such as "color rendition and contrast" can usually be resolved with appropriate post-processing.

I'd like to give the 135L and the 85L a try, too, but right now they wouldn't return the investment, they'd just be toys without any business justification.

If you do any outside portraiture there is a business case to be make for the 135L. The 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens but the wow factor from the 135L will make a differnce in portrait work. My 70-200 f4 IS only comes out to play when the 135L wont fit.

nathancarter wrote in post #17203923
they'd just be toys without any business justification.

Times like this make me really glad I am just an amateur.

I love my f4 IS, when I bought it I looked at both, the f4 an f2.8. Almost double the weight, larger size (i.e would not fit in my bag) and a lot more money, I went with the f4. Never once wished it would go below f4, not sure I even ever used mine at f4. Unless you have a particular need for wider open, like often shooting at dark events etc, it's - IMO - not worth the extra money. And weight and size.

Shooting at 2.8 is nice. But my thought was, if I really wanted even less DOF than f4, why stop at 2.8? Why not get something even faster, hence the 135L that everyone (including myself) reccomends. The 135L competes damn close to the mk II at 20mm and 2.8, and some say even better for portraiture. Chances are that I will be able to use a 135 when I need that wider aperture, so it would win over the 2.8. Add in the fact that I can own both lenses for the same cost as the mk II, I find it the best option.

Only downside that I could see to that is if you often shoot in low/dim light and need to be able to adjust focal length quickly (weddings and sports).