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 11 Aug 2016 (Thursday) 21:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Finally doing it: deciding between 70-200 f/2.8 II and f/4 IS

 
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,063 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2719
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 21, 2016 09:30 |  #61

I can tell which one is the 2.8 II. It has an edge on the F4 IS.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,818 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 434
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 2 years ago by mwsilver.
     
Aug 21, 2016 13:12 |  #62

Talley wrote in post #18101651 (external link)
I can tell which one is the 2.8 II. It has an edge on the F4 IS.

Yes, the f/2.8 II has an edge on the f/4 IS, but just an edge. When you consider the much lower price and the very significantly smaller size and weight, for those that can live with the 1 stop difference, the F/4 IS is much more comfortable to use handheld and is quite a bargain


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,662 posts
Gallery: 641 photos
Likes: 10430
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Aug 22, 2016 06:49 |  #63

Final update:

The f/4 IS has been sent back :-(

I couldn't justify having both versions of the 70-200. Since I decided to keep the f/2.8 for upcoming paid work, and I have other lenses I'll grab before the f/4 IS during my regular shooting (50L, 100L, 100-400), I'm afraid the f/4 IS wouldn't see as much use as I am envisioning. The one area where I may sorely miss it is travel, but ultimately I think my travel kit will be 16-35/50L/100L.

This was a great exercise that allowed me to really dig in and evaluate whether or not my lens selction aligns with my photographic intent. I'm also wary of having too much money invested in photography, so I make sure that each lens in my lineup has a specific use case, and I'm not overlapping capabilities. Someday in my life when I am more financially well off I may be able to afford to buy whatever without question, but not at the present :)

To anyone attempting to decide between these amazing lenses: buy either with confidence, as they are simply fantastic. Do not fear IQ loss by going with the f/4 IS, because it is 99% of the f/2.8 II. Make the decision based on whether or not you absolutely require f/2.8 over f/4. If you go with the f/4 you'll be rewarded with a substantial reduction in weight and bulk, which to me made for a much more pleasant shooting experience when compared to its beefy f/2.8 brother.


"NEW YEAR, NO G.A.S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,063 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2719
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 22, 2016 07:19 |  #64

the F4 IS is a joy... lighter than alot of primes.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,533 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5570
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 22, 2016 08:29 as a reply to  @ MatthewK's post |  #65

16-35/50/100 is a darn good travel kit!

Ide probably bring more, but I tend to overextend myself :-P


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,017 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 899
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 22, 2016 09:25 |  #66

MatthewK wrote in post #18101244 (external link)
It think it mostly boils down to weight loss, yes. But, there's a little bit of regret about having a lot of money tied up in a lens I'm not using as much. But, since I may be starting to shoot more paid gigs, the f/2.8 has won it's old place back, and now I have another 70-200 in my collection. I'm still not 100% that I need both of them, yet having the lightness of the f/4 is refreshing. For my normal day to day usage there are other lenses in my lineup I'd grab before any of the 70-200 variants because when I shoot, I usually have a subject in mind. Birds/wildlife goes to the 100-400, macro to the 100L, portraits to the 50L and 135L, landscape to the 16-35 f/4.

More questions have arisen, unfortunately. I know some people just say "keep all of the things!", but I'm firmly in the camp of only keeping what one needs now, not potentially needs. I think I might have to wait for the recent excitement of this latest purchase to die down before I can determine if the f/4 IS is really needed or not (aka will it get used enough). My 24L was about to get the axe for the same reason, but it has since found new life on my 80D.

A few times I looked at adding a Fuji cam to my quiver, but my philosophy there is that if I am intent on taking a photo, I will use my DSLR and all my sundry lenses. If I don't have a subject in mind or am not taking photos, I'll use my iPhone. A "middle weight" camera wouldn't get used enough, unfortunately, unless it replaced my DSLR.

Well the weekend is over and I documented one of Canada's largest VW show in our beautiful Vancouver city!

I will have to say for years I've lugged my 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 along side my second body with either 16-35 or 24-70 for event work for outdoor car shows. I've always considered the 70-300L or 70-200 f/4IS. My 100-400L mk1 never satisfied me regarding sharpness and IQ with my FF bodies although I loved the push/pull zoom mechanism.

I will have to say the this year adding a 16mpx fuji body with 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 zoom to my carshow documentation I was blown away in the image quality of a fuji zoom costing $599USD (699 CDN). This ridiculously light and small lens is razor sharp from wide to long end of it's FL.

My honeymoon stage is over with Fuji yet the IQ I get from this system for my purposes still shocks me. The 16mm f/1.4 fuji prime would provide me a feather weight option vs my 5d3 w/ 24Lmk2. Also to note the IQ from the fuji would be easily on par or surpass IQ compared to a Canon crop w/ 24Lmk1.

Off topic: what's the best method of posting photos on this forum without compression?


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,662 posts
Gallery: 641 photos
Likes: 10430
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Post edited over 2 years ago by MatthewK.
     
Aug 22, 2016 10:39 |  #67

AlanU wrote in post #18102559 (external link)
Well the weekend is over and I documented one of Canada's largest VW show in our beautiful Vancouver city!

I will have to say for years I've lugged my 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 along side my second body with either 16-35 or 24-70 for event work for outdoor car shows. I've always considered the 70-300L or 70-200 f/4IS. My 100-400L mk1 never satisfied me regarding sharpness and IQ with my FF bodies although I loved the push/pull zoom mechanism.

I will have to say the this year adding a 16mpx fuji body with 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 zoom to my carshow documentation I was blown away in the image quality of a fuji zoom costing $599USD (699 CDN). This ridiculously light and small lens is razor sharp from wide to long end of it's FL.

Off topic: what's the best method of posting photos on this forum without compression?

I'd be interested to see your shots from the show! Link?

We have a huge VW show out here on the east coast in Ocean City, MD. Have you heard of H20i? Even though I don't own a VW (Subie owner here :) ), I still make it out for the fest from time to time.

Regarding the Fuji 55-200, what's the equivalent FL on a FF considering the crop factor? Does Fuji have a good macro lens? I did some research on Fuji lenses last year in order to figure out what would mirror my lenses in my Canon system. Lots of good glass that I would be tempted to try out!


"NEW YEAR, NO G.A.S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,818 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 434
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Aug 22, 2016 10:48 |  #68

Talley wrote in post #18102484 (external link)
the F4 IS is a joy... lighter than alot of primes.

Absolutely, and half the weight of the f/2.8 II.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,063 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2719
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 22, 2016 10:52 |  #69

mwsilver wrote in post #18102617 (external link)
Absolutely, and half the weight of the f/2.8 II.

woa woa woa... don't go comparing it with my comment. I Just said the F4 IS is a joy to use and that it was just uber light vs alot of other lenses. I would still grab the 2.8 over the F4 unless I left the 2.8 at home because I was on vacation :)


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,818 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 434
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 2 years ago by mwsilver. (8 edits in all)
     
Aug 22, 2016 14:24 |  #70

Talley wrote in post #18102620 (external link)
woa woa woa... don't go comparing it with my comment. I Just said the F4 IS is a joy to use and that it was just uber light vs alot of other lenses. I would still grab the 2.8 over the F4 unless I left the 2.8 at home because I was on vacation :)

I didn't say the f/4 was the f/2.8's equal, I said it weighed 1/2 as much. But, for many the trade off in speed and the relatively small difference in IQ may be less important then the size and weight savings, not to mention the $900 USD lower cost.

The f/4 IS costs 55% of the f/2.8 II and weighs almost exactly half as much . Most things in life require compromise, but for me this is an easy compromise to live with.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,244 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 486
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 22, 2016 14:41 |  #71

Talley wrote in post #18102484 (external link)
the F4 IS is a joy... lighter than alot of primes.

Its one of my favorite lenses. its light enough that I can throw it in a bag "just in case" without thinking about the weight penalty.

Buuuuuut, I just picked up an f/2.8 II since I'm doing more indoor sports. For that, the extra stop makes a big difference. I prefer the flexibility of zooms over primes most of the time.

I'll almost certainly keep the f/4 IS for situations there I might want more reach but don't need the f/2.8 since its a joy to use. If I ever pick up a mirrorless system for more casual photography, I might sell the f/4 IS then.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,244 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 486
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 22, 2016 14:42 |  #72

mwsilver wrote in post #18102617 (external link)
Absolutely, and half the weight of the f/2.8 II.

I think its more like 1/3rd the weight.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,017 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 899
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 22, 2016 15:04 |  #73

MatthewK wrote in post #18102613 (external link)
I'd be interested to see your shots from the show! Link?

We have a huge VW show out here on the east coast in Ocean City, MD. Have you heard of H20i? Even though I don't own a VW (Subie owner here :) ), I still make it out for the fest from time to time.

Regarding the Fuji 55-200, what's the equivalent FL on a FF considering the crop factor? Does Fuji have a good macro lens? I did some research on Fuji lenses last year in order to figure out what would mirror my lenses in my Canon system. Lots of good glass that I would be tempted to try out!

I'm not trying to force feed you Fujifilm :) Just mentioning alternatives for weight loss.

The first 1/3 of this link is my fuji x-t10 with 55-200 zoom. All of the UWA/wide angle photos was from my canon 5dmk2 w/ 16-35f/2.8mk2. The fuji took care of most of my long telephoto needs and I was not putting emphasis on super shallow dof. Last weekends epic VW event I wanted to capture the moment unlike posed photos. This is where I surprised myself in how my feather weight Fuji was amazing.

To be honest i did pull out my 5d3/70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 combo because of an impromptu "recently married" couples portrait photo.....as I was documenting the VW show in Vancouver's gorgeous falsecreek area. The Canon is still my comfort go to system for serious sessions.

http://www.alanuyenoph​otography.com/p3902000​54 (external link)

I'm afraid to link this page because I uploaded long edge 2048 to down res the files to my website (speed up upload transfer). IQ wise the 55-200 can provide nice IQ like my previous Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1 (minus the shallower dof). Yesterday's (last weekends) As I documented 2 days with the Fuji body I was very impressed with the "cheaper" long telephoto lens. As a matter of fact if I compare IQ of my 5dmk2 w/ 100-400L mk1 I'd take a shorter 55-200 fuji combo with no regrets. The Fuji lush/rich sharp images would destroy my perfect 100-400L mk1 copy by a huge margin.

The 55-200 is a ballpark of 82-300mm if you compare it to FF.

If I knew how to upload uncompressed images onto this site I'll post some examples.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,533 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5570
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 22, 2016 15:52 |  #74

AlanU wrote in post #18102863 (external link)
I'm not trying to force feed you Fujifilm :) Just mentioning alternatives for weight loss.

The first 1/3 of this link is my fuji x-t10 with 55-200 zoom. All of the UWA/wide angle photos was from my canon 5dmk2 w/ 16-35f/2.8mk2. The fuji took care of most of my long telephoto needs and I was not putting emphasis on super shallow dof. Last weekends epic VW event I wanted to capture the moment unlike posed photos. This is where I surprised myself in how my feather weight Fuji was amazing.

To be honest i did pull out my 5d3/70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 combo because of an impromptu "recently married" couples portrait photo.....as I was documenting the VW show in Vancouver's gorgeous falsecreek area. The Canon is still my comfort go to system for serious sessions.

http://www.alanuyenoph​otography.com/p3902000​54 (external link)

I'm afraid to link this page because I uploaded long edge 2048 to down res the files to my website (speed up upload transfer). IQ wise the 55-200 can provide nice IQ like my previous Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1 (minus the shallower dof). Yesterday's (last weekends) As I documented 2 days with the Fuji body I was very impressed with the "cheaper" long telephoto lens. As a matter of fact if I compare IQ of my 5dmk2 w/ 100-400L mk1 I'd take a shorter 55-200 fuji combo with no regrets. The Fuji lush/rich sharp images would destroy my perfect 100-400L mk1 copy by a huge margin.

The 55-200 is a ballpark of 82-300mm if you compare it to FF.

If I knew how to upload uncompressed images onto this site I'll post some examples.

If he wants to lose some weight, Sony is the way not fuji  :p

70-300G > 55-200
low/high ISO > 5D3 > fuji
AF > Fuji, however fuji may have caught up
IBIS > nothing for lowlight
Eye AF > all
Can use canon lenses with good AF in a pinch.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,063 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2719
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited over 2 years ago by Talley.
     
Aug 22, 2016 16:41 |  #75

mike_d wrote in post #18102831 (external link)
I think its more like 1/3rd the weight.

Nope... it's like literally half the weight. I own both and know. 26.8oz vs. 52.4oz

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …=404&LensComp=6​87&Units=E (external link)


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

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

12,258 views & 29 likes for this thread
Finally doing it: deciding between 70-200 f/2.8 II and f/4 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 DrBarun
934 guests, 370 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.