Sorry, but another which lens....

I am on the fence....

I have the funds for either but not both.
I am considering the 70-200 f2.8iii or f4 ii
I had the f4 version 1 but it was stolen.

I used it a lot and i loved it. There were times i wished i had the extra stop, though most of the times i was happier that the f4 was lighter.

The f4ii has an approx 5 stop rating while the 2.8 iii has a 3 or 3.5 rating - so that is slightly in the f4 ii favor.

Any opinions would be welcome, though for this lens i am not interested in a used lens.

Ah, i shoot family, travel, portrait. I am not a pro.

Thanks

These are both superb lenses and each will perform equally well at their optimal apertures. With all the lenses I have owned over many years of photography I have found that each lens has a sweet spot. This is the highest possible quality in sharpness. Other words the sharpest aperture is 2 to 3 stops smaller than the widest.
If it was my choice I would go for the 70-200 f/2.8iii. But I stress this is my point of view. What ever decision you make you will not be disappointed with either. I own the MKii version of this lens and my son has the f4ii. We both prefer the f/2.8 lens. I can only imagine the version iii is better.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #18935067
I am on the fence....

I have the funds for either but not both.
I am considering the 70-200 f2.8iii or f4 ii
I had the f4 version 1 but it was stolen.

I used it a lot and i loved it. There were times i wished i had the extra stop, though most of the times i was happier that the f4 was lighter.

The f4ii has an approx 5 stop rating while the 2.8 iii has a 3 or 3.5 rating - so that is slightly in the f4 ii favor.

Any opinions would be welcome, though for this lens i am not interested in a used lens.

Ah, i shoot family, travel, portrait. I am not a pro.

Thanks

I bought the 70-200 f/ L IS (Version 1) now ten years ago in 2009. Smaller, lighter less expensive than the then only 70-200 f/2.8 Version 1. Loved it. When the f/2.8 L IS Mark was introduced a short time later. I bought the new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II in Jan. 2011. Everything it was hyped up to be and more. Not an easy task compared to the wonderful f/4 L IS in terms of image quality and sharpness. Being younger then, hauling around the bigger lens with f/2.8 was no problem. Sure I could sell the smaller, lighter f/4. L IS.
In 2016 returning home from Italy, my back and shoulder was a mess. As I haul, and I mean haul a ton of gear, my European travel bag had 2 Gripped 5D Mark III’s with along with my then Greek Trilogy, the 16-35 f/4. L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. How do lighten the load and still be able to enjoy? Swap out the 70-200 f/2.8 for the old smaller, lighter f/4L IS. Next trip to Iceland, I forced myself to take my new Greek Trilogy of the Kanon f/4 L IS. All with f/4. No problem with carrying and more importantly on return.
Since then my f/4 L IS was in the bag and my f/2.8 remained home, unless where f/2.8 is required, weddings, low light etc. Now 56 years old you look to the future and how not to put yourself in tough situations. From Portugal and Spain to Scandinavia, the f/4 L IS Trilogy performed admirably.

A few months ago decided to treat myself to the newly updated 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. Compared to the wonderful original, color and contrast have been improved along with sharpness throughout. No easy task improving on the old version 1. So my new Greek Trilogy with the newly acquired 70-200 f/4 L IS made it’s debut last month while in Greece, from the finest architectural details of the Parthenon, the beautiful Lands and seascapes of Mykonos and the beauty of Santorini, the new f/4 L IS Mark II has lived up to its improvements.
Having all three lenses, yes the f/4 L IS Version 1 is still in my possession, my go to is the new f/4 L IS Mark II.
Smaller, lighter wins out over 1 stop for European travel or most situations.

The key question you need to answer is: Is the additional stop worth the price and the weight? The 2.8 is substantially bigger and heavier - go and handle it on your camera and see for yourself.
(For me it was - I went with the 2.8).

"drmaxx" makes a good point.

The F2.8 can definitely be an advantage, but will it be with you when you need it? I used to have the Canon 70 - 200 F2.8 L IS and sold it because it was very rarely used - simply because of it's weight! It wasn't with me when I needed it - so it was not much use.

If you need a 70-200 F2.8 then dump other gear and just carry that lens, if (like me you prefer versatility) then the F4 is might be the better option?

Thanks for all the responses,

Nick5, you and i are close in age and indeed the weight thought is not far away. I have the 100-400ii and while i can handle it just fine, it isn't a lens i would relish to take along with all my gear for an outing of 15 hours while traveling.

While i usually frequent Europe on my vacations, this year we are heading to Japan. A first (of many i can hope) for me. The weather is going to be overcast and a bit drizzly.

My plan is the 70-200 of some sort, the 16-35 f4is, my 24-105 v1, and i am toying around with shleping some fast special glass - either the 100 macro or the 85 1.2 for low light scenarios on my 5d3. I am not sure the amount of time the 85 or 100 would be on the camera is worth the weight... but i am thinking about it.

Johnf3f- truly, i am not sure when i would use the extra stop, but every once i a while. And indeed the idea is to measure if "every once in a while" is good enough. I loved my version 1 70-200 f4 is. I throw no shade- only love.

Pccousins, thanks for the answer. I totally need to figure out as above.

Thanks all.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #18936232
Johnf3f- truly, i am not sure when i would use the extra stop, but every once i a while. And indeed the idea is to measure if "every once in a while" is good enough. I loved my version 1 70-200 f4 is. I throw no shade- only love.

Thanks all.

My problem with my 70-200 F2.8 L IS was simply the weight which tended to make me leave it behind unless I really knew that I needed it. The F4 models don't really add too much weight to the backpack - so they are more likely to be in it! In other words the F4 will be there when you need it.

I am not adverse to carrying large lenses, my primary lens is the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS = a 1DX, but when you are yomping around trying to get the best angle lighter is better. If you know where you are going and shooting from then it is easy to decide on the best lens (if you can afford it!) but when you need to be flexible then lighter lenses have their place.

P.S. Hope you like your 16-35 F4 L IS as much as I like mine and Do Not try the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2

I've had my 70-200 f2.8L IS II lens for about a year now. It is not a very handy "walk around" lens and can be a burden if that is the intended use. The big aperture is golden, however, when photographing action shots where DOF is an important factor such as this photo:

Lol! Up until my v1 got stolen, the 24-70 v2 was in the crosshairs.
So....one day...one day....


The rodeo picture is amazing. (I love rodeo).

Portability for travel seems to be taking a lead in importance right now. 3 kids, back pack full of dad alpaca stuff (tourist stuff) and 8-10kg of camera gear.....12 -15 hour days. (We are "power tourists")ߤʰߘ

ceriltheblade wrote in post #18937247
Lol! Up until my v1 got stolen, the 24-70 v2 was in the crosshairs.
So....one day...one day....


The rodeo picture is amazing. (I love rodeo).

Portability for travel seems to be taking a lead in importance right now. 3 kids, back pack full of dad alpaca stuff (tourist stuff) and 8-10kg of camera gear.....12 -15 hour days. (We are "power tourists")ߤʰߘ

Look at how many pictures you have taken with f/2.8 on all of your lenses, if you have other f/2.8 lenses or wider.