EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM?

Hi,

I've been comparing two lenses recently:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 USM IS

They have exactly the same zoom range, but the f/2.8 is faster, larger and heavier. I was planning to go for the f/2.8 all the way, until I read reviews of the same lenses on Photozone:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 USM IS

The Digital Picture is my go-to site for info on lenses, but a friend recently pointed me to Photozone, which goes into much more technical depth. Photozone insists that the f/4 is the much better decision, citing much better image quality.

Can anyone offer some insight on the difference between the two?

Thanks!

Quintin wrote in post #9020661
Hi,

I've been comparing two lenses recently:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 USM IS

They have exactly the same zoom range, but the f/2.8 is faster, larger and heavier. I was planning to go for the f/2.8 all the way, until I read reviews of the same lenses on Photozone:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 USM IS

The Digital Picture is my go-to site for info on lenses, but a friend recently pointed me to Photozone, which goes into much more technical depth. Photozone insists that the f/4 is the much better decision, citing much better image quality.

Can anyone offer some insight on the difference between the two?

Thanks!

I've had both ,the F/4 is hard to beat but it all depends what your needs are I sold the f/4 and got the 2.8 because of my wedding photography but I do miss the f/4 a lot .The 2.8 is much heavier and much larger I say if you don't need the extra stop go for the F/4 and save yourself seven hundred dollars or so .

Alan

BTW I dont think there is anything wrong with how sharp the 2.8 is.

Alan

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Truthfully, unless you pixel peek; I don't think you will notice any great difference between any of the Canon 70-200mm lens family.

The major differences are:

Aperture; of course the f/2.8 lens is faster and can be used in a lower light level

Weight; The f/2.8 IS model is a LOT heavier than the f/4L IS lens which is svelte in comparison. I can carry my f/4L IS lens AND a extra 30D or 40D camera at the weight of the f/2.8 IS lens alone.

Size; The f/2.8 IS lens is quite a bit bigger than the f/4L IS

Price; I can not only carry an extra 30D camera for the weight of the f/2.8 IS but I can buy a used 30D (or perhaps a 40D) camera for the extra price of the f/2.8 IS lens.

IMO: I would not want to carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens everywhere as I carry the f/4L IS model. I certainly would not want to carry it on an extra body the way I like to carry my f/4L IS lens.

My f/4L IS lens is half of a two lens duo (the other being the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) with which I am able to shoot 90-95% of my general and travel photography.

I am traveling to China this Spring and I will be carrying both of these lenses as my go-to kit. With today's weight restrictions on airlines, I would have problems bringing the f/2.8 IS lens.

don't forget that the f2.8 can take advantage of the more accurate cross type / x type sensors. Thats a big advantage... but it is heavy, very heavy. They are about the same sharpness at f4.

I wouldn't put too much thought into the IQ differences between these lenses. They are both good enough so any decision should be based on f2.8 vs. f4, size, weight, and price.

That said, the f4 Is is indeed the sharper lens and has better optics inside. But the f2.8 is a workhorse lens for so many professionals out there.

Thanks for sharing your insight, guys.

I am planning to do a lot of low-light photography (live music photography, mostly), so it looks like it'll have to be the f2.8.

It's a lot of money, though. I'm wondering, instead, if I shouldn't go for a higher-end general purpose lens, since all I have at the moment is the EF 18-55mm IS kit lens that came with my 500D.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM is a contender, but it's a pity there's no image stabiliser. The 24-104mm f/4 L USM IS has a better range and is cheaper, but again isn't as good in low light.

How much of a difference does the image stabiliser make? Up to 4 stops is claimed, but is it really that drastic?

I found the 24-70 wanting on a sub frame camera. I sold it, and bought the 17-55IS. Its 2.8 and IS, and razor sharp. Hard to beat.

really having 2.8 just for the added accuracy of low light focusing is a major bonus.

Quintin wrote in post #9021037
Thanks for sharing your insight, guys.

I am planning to do a lot of low-light photography (live music photography, mostly), so it looks like it'll have to be the f2.8.

It's a lot of money, though. I'm wondering, instead, if I shouldn't go for a higher-end general purpose lens, since all I have at the moment is the EF 18-55mm IS kit lens that came with my 500D.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM is a contender, but it's a pity there's no image stabiliser. The 24-104mm f/4 L USM IS has a better range and is cheaper, but again isn't as good in low light.

How much of a difference does the image stabiliser make? Up to 4 stops is claimed, but is it really that drastic?

Think about this in your choice, if your taking low light photographs of still subjects you need the IS version to cancel any handheld camera shake at low shutter speeds.

If your taking pics of moving scenes, ie gigs, then IS wont help freeze the action, on an F4 IS you wont have camera shake but instead blurred shots because you couldnt get the shutter fast enough, thats where the 2.8 comes in.

Thats why a lot of people like the nifty fifty for its 1.8 in low light situations like gigs.

Of course thats very simplistic and you have to take iso into account and timing your shots with the stage lights coming on etc.