Sell 70-200 F4L for 200 2.8L

I have been considering selling my 70-200 f4L and replace it with the 200 2.8L. I find that I only use my 70-200 at the long end and f4 is very underwhelming when you get used to 1.4, 1.8, and 2.8.

Any thoughts on making this switch?

I would prefer to switch from the 70-200mm f/4L to the f/4L IS version.

I can shoot in lower light levels with the f/4L IS than with a non-IS 200mm lens. Of course, either the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or the Mk.ii model of that lens would allow far lower light shooting than either the f/4L IS or any non-IS f/2.8 200mm lens - AT THE COST OF HEAVIER WEIGHT...

I use my 70-200mm for a variety of shooting and love it for portraits. I often shoot between 70mm and 135mm for head and shoulder portraits...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …bqh#1244551055_​ox8GE-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …h#1281579394_Jr​kG2Ch-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …bqh#1245211358_​fmSU4-A-LB

I sold my 70-200 f4 IS to purchase a the f2.8 IS II, that everyone raves about. and I have been sorry ever sense. The f/2.8 is heavy, bigger and a pain carry around and though it a great lens, I sure wish I had the f/4 back.. It you don't need f/2.8 the f/4 with IS would be the way I would go, as the poster above suggested.
Vern

For portraits, I generally prefer my 85 1.8 or I use my 70-200 racked out to 200. I am not too concerned about IS because although it allows me to handle hold with slow shutter speeds, I find that my subject still requires a fast shutter speed. IE Wedding events, sports, children playing, etc.

Sell it and give the prime a try. If it doesn't work out you can always sell again and start over. That's the nice thing about the L's, they hold value well.

i am also torn between in 2.8 IS and the 4 IS, I can shell out the extra money but if the weight factor is too much then I'd rather go with the 4.

Laadla wrote in post #13158686
i am also torn between in 2.8 IS and the 4 IS, I can shell out the extra money but if the weight factor is too much then I'd rather go with the 4.

I would suggest renting both and trying them out.....

I own a 200mm f2.8 L and a 70-200 f4 IS. I have also tested and used your lens the 70-200 f4.

I would like to say out of the examples that I have seen, whilst the 70-200 f4 that you own is great vlaue for money the other two lenses are in a different league.

Benefits of the prime are simply the shallower depth of field and beautiful bokeh. It will be a full stop more handholdable than your non IS if you use it wide open too. (Incidentally my f4 IS is 3 stops more handholdable than the f2.8 prime without IS!)

The f2.8 prime is considerbaly sharper than the olde 70-200 f4, it is probably not quite as sharp in the corners as my f4 IS. However at f5.6 the prime just edges it for microcontrast.

So basically forgetting the advantages of the f4 IS and ruling it out on price, if you do just use your lens at the 200mm end then I would definitely change to the 200mm f2.8, it is a lovely lens, very fast autofocus too.

Craig.

I faced the same dilemma and went w 200 2.8ii. I traded 70-200 f4 non is straight up for the prime and have zero regrets. I get tons of use out of prime for portraits, wildlife and sports/ fast action photography.

Laadla wrote in post #13158686
i am also torn between in 2.8 IS and the 4 IS, I can shell out the extra money but if the weight factor is too much then I'd rather go with the 4.

I also own a 300mm f/4L IS which I occasionally lug around. I use it mostly for sporting events, airshows and some wildlife photography.

I really know that I have been carrying a heavy load after 8-10 hours of carrying the 300mm f/4L IS. At the end of a long day, every ounce seems like it weighs a pound.

THE 300MM F/4L IS LENS IS ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT AS THE F/2.8L (SERIES) LENSES...

My initial decision several years ago between the 70-200 f4 and 200 f2.8 II was made when I decided I'd be almoast always at 200mm -- I went with the later and love this lens (bokeh, size, speed is great, but no IS hurts on stationary subjects), but after I got the 70-300L I found I almost never use this lens now -- I know, the 70-300L is about f5 @200mm but it is such a great lens -- I still do not regret getting the 200 f2.8 II and intend to keep it for those special occasions where I want that fantastic wide open bokeh . . .

Also, some in this thread are assuming the OP is referencing the 70-200 f2.8 IS series zooms -- I think the OP means the EF 200 f2.8 II prime, not the f2.8 70-200 zoom(s) --

Exchanged the 70-200 F4 IS for the 2.8 IS II and I couldn't be happier.

Go for it. I really like my 70-200/4L IS and the 70-200/2.8L IS. But,if you really want something a bit faster and don't care about focal length below 200mm, the 200/2.8L has a lot going for it: small/light and not painted white.

I personally can see myself buying a 200/2.8L as a compact 200mm lens (probably toss in my 1.4x TC as well). It would go nice when I want to go with shorter primes and not lug the 70-200/2.8L IS mk II for reach. But, I have a bunch of other L primes to buy before it.

A friend of mine who had a 200/2.8L thinks the optical quality of the 70-200/2.8L IS mk II was so good, that he doesn't need the 200L. He was very tempted to also get rid of his 135L, but, fortunately calmed down enough to avoid that crazy idea.

RPCrowe wrote in post #13160915
I also own a 300mm f/4L IS which I occasionally lug around. I use it mostly for sporting events, airshows and some wildlife photography.

I really know that I have been carrying a heavy load after 8-10 hours of carrying the 300mm f/4L IS. At the end of a long day, every ounce seems like it weighs a pound.

THE 300MM F/4L IS LENS IS ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT AS THE F/2.8L (SERIES) LENSES...

That is correct, my question was about the EF 200 F2.8L prime lens, not the 70-200 F2.8

I heard the 200 F/2 is nice