Canon 70-200 f/4 vs 2.8

I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II.
Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?
Experiences and opinions would be appreciated.

Al

There are only three significant factors that differentiate the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II:

1. One stop
2. 1.61 lbs.
3. $950

Which one you want really depends on what you will be taking pictures of and thus which of these factors is most important or not important to you. I use each of them for different types of photography and both are amazing.

It's an amazing, lightweight, very versatile lens. Having previously owned a f.8 non-IS, I much prefer the smaller format of the f4 IS. You're unlikely to be disappointed.

I pondered this for weeks before I bought my 2.8 IS II. The problem is, they're both good but I couldn't afford both.

I was persuaded by three things:

1. One stop
2. I could afford either
3. If I bought the F4, I would always be asking myself "What if..."

But I'm still asking "What if..."

I never leave home without my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens! However, I have read numerous posts on various forums in which the posters did not want to take a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens on a trip because IT IS TOO HEAVY! I have never read a post by the owner of an f/4L IS lens suggesting that this lens should could not be carried anywhere...

I can carry the f/4L IS lens AND A SECOND 1.6x CAMERA at the same weight as the f/2.8L (series) lens alone...

With the decent ISO capability of today's DSLR cameras and the capability of hand holding the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens down to 1/60 or even 1/30 second; the f/4L IS lens is no longer a captive to bright light as was its older brother: the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens...

I am glad that the f/2.8L IS ii lens is more expensive than the f/4L IS. It it were the other way around, I would have even a harder decision in selecting the f/4L IS. But, due to the weight factor, I still think that the f/4L IS would win that contest...

I have to admit that the f/2.8L IS ii lens is a wonderful piece of gear. The big claim of the f/2.8L IS ii fan club is that the f/2.8 aperture can provide better selective focus. Well, these were shot with the f/4L IS lens...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …62075397&k=aJyK​z&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …721830&k=ZTkkrd​C&lb=1&s=A

Thanks for the help. I did forget to mention that I do most of my shooting outdoors. My main lens is a 500 f/4 and f/4 never seemed to be a problem, especially with the 1d mark iv. So the question is that of iq and sharpness. It appears that the consensus is that, in good light it's as good as the 2.8.

For outdoor use it is a superb lens. The images from it rarely need any post processing, even when shot wide open.

Aren't the 1D series of cameras among the heaviest cameras Canon makes. Why would a difference in weight be a concern ? I know silly question.

The faster lens is going to give you more overall room - more leeway before you need to get into those higher ISO's.. Not a lot- but enough.

Besides f/2.8 can do f/4- but not vice versa.

kbar7285 wrote in post #14908534
I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II. Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?

f/4 + high ISO does not = f/2.8

If you need f/2.8 for faster shutter speeds, brighter viewfinder, size & shape of bokeh, more shallow depth of field, or increased focus precision on certain focus points, then get the f/2.8 lens. If you do not need any of those things, then get the f/4 lens.

The only one of those things that f/4 + high ISO can mimic is the faster shutter speeds, but it will still be slower than f/2.8 + high ISO.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14909148
Aren't the 1D series of cameras among the heaviest cameras Canon makes. Why would a difference in weight be a concern ? I know silly question.

The faster lens is going to give you more overall room - more leeway before you need to get into those higher ISO's.. Not a lot- but enough.

Besides f/2.8 can do f/4- but not vice versa.

I never said weight was an issue for me when considering the f/4. You're right though. If I'm shooting with 1d's, weight would not be part of the criteria.
I'm just trying to figure out if the f4 is as sharp as the 2.8 when it comes to outdoor shooting.

Al

For outdoor shooting its very hard to tell the difference, I was simply blown away by the sharpness and colour saturation of F4L. For me the deciding factor was its size and weight. F4L+gitzo tripod=F2.8L MKII. Now that for me sealed the deal.

I have both
Almost same focusing speed (for my copies), both tack sharp, both great color satuation.. GREAT IS
Actually I have no idea which to go.. but I siply like f2.8..

I had a 70-200 F4 (non IS) and sold it to get the 70-200 2.8 IS v1. I later sold the F2.8 v1 to get the v2 .. which is by far the sharpest of the three, and the IS does make a real difference.
I have to admit I miss the size and weight of the F4 and am actually thinking about grabbing an additional F4 IS to supplement the 2.8 for the times where size and weight do matter.

kbar7285 wrote in post #14908534
I'm considering a f/4 IS version of the 70-200. I shoot with a 1d MK IV and a 1ds MK II.
Given the high ISO performance of both bodies, would the f/4 be a viable option ?
Experiences and opinions would be appreciated.

Al

Go for the 70 -200 L f/4 IS. The 70-200 L f2.8 II is overpriced!

gacon1 wrote in post #14911394
Go for the 70 -200 L f/4 IS. The 70-200 L f2.8 II is overpriced!

I dont think so！
A new F4 is around 1100 and a mark II is around 2000, you have a full stop more. And it is probably one of the best zoom Canon ever made, comparable to the primes in this range. That is simply a genious design.
But f4 is not bad for any means. I just dont think mark II is overpriced.