What is the sharpest Canon 70-200mm ?? Help me decide please.

Hello shooters.

I'm trying to decide what is the sharpest canon 70-200mm telephoto zoom, searched a lot and i think EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM are sharp but i cant decide which one to buy, i am seeking sharpness here and i know this 2.8 is great for low light and fast shutter speed, please help.

I have the 2.8II, had the F4IS. Sharpness is a toss up, I wouldn't use it as a criteria for selection.

Both are very sharp. You should base your decision on if you need the extra stop or not.

If you don't need 2.8 the f/4 is much more compact and lighter lens.

DavidR wrote in post #14625640
Both are very sharp. You should base your decision on if you need the extra stop or not.

If you don't need 2.8 the f/4 is much more compact and lighter lens.

What he said

All the 70-200's are sharp enough, the mkII is perhaps another step on.

Decide on what size you want not sharpness.

2.8II and f/4 IS are both tack sharp. As others said, decide if you need the stop.

windpig wrote in post #14625496
I have the 2.8II, had the F4IS. Sharpness is a toss up, I wouldn't use it as a criteria for selection.

+1

Some better criteria for selection are:

1. Cost, the f/2.8 is about a grand more over the f/4, this is probubly a big sum of money to you and is likely your largest question, if you're willing to spend the extra and are looking to do it now, we move on to number two

2. Speed, f/2.8 is a stop faster than f/4, that means it lets in twice as much light and lets you use a shutter speed twice as fast, Only a fast shutter stops action, IS does nothing, But that said, f/4 is plenty fast for daylight work and even in low light you can manage pretty well with it on a modern camera, But that said, if you're going to be shooting at dusk, or in the morning, or indoors, then the f/2.8 is probubly the better way to go, Of course the f/2.8 also offers more isolation than the f/4, So there is that to consider

3. Size and weight, The f/4 is quite a bit more svelte and also substantially lighter, if you're older or have medical problems, or are just not in the best of shape, the difference between the 3.5lb 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 1.6lb 70-200 f/4L IS is very very large, Heck even if you can handle the weight you might not want to depending on how much you will be using this lens

Id say for most people it comes down to the price equation, $1000 is a big amount of money for most people, Of course you can take a third option and check out the excellent Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS which gives you f/2.8 at the price of the f/4 (And is also quite sharp, especially so at f/4) if you really need the f/2.8 but maybe arent so willing to shell out for the Canon...

But sharpness? Nah, my 70-200 f/4L is plenty tack sharp even with a Teleconverter on it on my EOS 7D which is one of the most demanding cameras on the market for lens sharpness... and the f/2.8L IS II is equal to it.... So yeah

Regarding the 70-200 L's, sharpness would be towards the bottom of my list when deciding which one to buy. They're all sharp. I'd be more concerned with price, weight, f2.8 vs f4, and whether I needed IS.

Sharpness being relatively equal, as it appears, I'd still say the 2.8 II as the focus is reportedly better. No point being sharp if your lens won't focus as quickly.

habro wrote in post #14627118
Sharpness being relatively equal, as it appears, I'd still say the 2.8 II as the focus is reportedly better. No point being sharp if your lens won't focus as quickly.

I'd say the f/4L IS is HARDLY a slouch... the f/2.8L IS II might be quicker but the f/4L IS is still one of the fastest focusing lenses I've ever owned... it keeps up with birds VERY well at least...

had the 4.0 IS and loved it, but the 2.8 IS II is sharpest of the two, with 1.4x TC on that's when you can tell the biggest difference in sharpness, the crown goes to the 2.8 IS II.

IMO, when it comes to the 70-200 selection of lenses, you need not worry about sharpness. They can all deliver in the IQ department. What you should be concerned with are your needs when it comes to a lens in this focal range. If size, weight and budget are not an issue, then sure, go with the 70-200 IS II. If you are looking for a hiking lens to mainly be used in fairly bright light, the f4 may be the better option. If sports is your thing, the 70-200 non IS would probably fit that role just perfectly. In the end, you should select your lenses on what you need....while sharpness is a consideration, it really isn't a concern with any of the 70-200 Canon lenses because they all deliver.

For the focal range of 70-200, the option of IS is a must.
Having both the f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS II, deciding between the two is difficult.
Go to your local shop that has both in stock and feel which one fits your needs. Yes there is a big difference in the weight between the two. The difference in pricing may allow you to add the products to your arsenal.
Pick the lens you like, and buy it from that retailer as their inventory allowed you to decide which fits for you.

I have to ask - is 70-200II @ f4 sharper than the F4IS @ f4?

kin2son wrote in post #14627967
I have to ask - is 70-200II @ f4 sharper than the F4IS @ f4?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2