Upgrade from 70-200 f/4 to f/2.8?

I currently have the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens and am wondering (while the $300 discount is in place) if I should consider the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. I am well aware of the differences between the two lens and my question is for those of you who have made this change are you happy with your new lens?

Thanks,

Hawks Feather wrote in post #16057552
=Hawk's Feather;16057552]I currently have the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens and am wondering (while the $300 discount is in place) if I should consider the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. I am well aware of the differences between the two lens and my question is for those of you who have made this change are you happy with your new lens?

Thanks,

I may actually be going the opposite direction....recently sold a 70-200 2.8 ISII, and am debating getting a 70-200 F4IS.

The 70-200 2.8 II is a massive, attention grabbing lens. As such, it didn't get very much use from me. It's not a very practical lens unless you shoot in settings where you're so starved for light that the extra stop will make or break a shoot. If I were shooting more weddings, I'd likely keep this in my bag, as its fantastic for that type of setting.

Most of my work, be it for myself or paid work for others, involves portrait work in controlled situations....in which I can usually lean on my primes, or the 24-70II when I need the flexibility for event work.

The mileage of others may vary of course, but for my uses, an extra stop of light gathering wasn't worth the cost, size, and weight...the latter two factors detracted from how often I used it.

Do you really need f/2.8? What do you shoot and where? I also went from the 2.8 IS to the 4 IS, less weight, saved $, and could not be happier.

i own the 70-200 f/2.8 L with no IS
its a great lens
but im sure that i will like the 70-200 f/4L IS more because of the weight and the size

When I went into the store, I was decided on the 70-200/2.8 non IS, but I walked out with the f4 IS. So I can appreciate how hard the choice is. There have definitly been times where I would have gotten better pictures with the 2.8, but overall I am glad I have the smaller lens with IS.

Have you thought about Complimenting your f4 IS with faster primes like the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2 and/or 200/2.8 II?

mystik610 wrote in post #16057575
I may actually be going the opposite direction....recently sold a 70-200 2.8 ISII, and am debating getting a 70-200 F4IS.

The 70-200 2.8 II is a massive, attention grabbing lens. As such, it didn't get very much use from me. It's not a very practical lens unless you shoot in settings where you're so starved for light that the extra stop will make or break a shoot. If I were shooting more weddings, I'd likely keep this in my bag, as its fantastic for that type of setting.

Most of my work, be it for myself or paid work for others, involves portrait work in controlled situations....in which I can usually lean on my primes, or the 24-70II when I need the flexibility for event work.

The mileage of others may vary of course, but for my uses, an extra stop of light gathering wasn't worth the cost, size, and weight...the latter two factors detracted from how often I used it.

No it is not. It is completely fine. Try carrying around one of the big whites (200,300,400mm primes), now those are the ones that get people's attention.

24-70 will also never get you the compression the 70-200 will provide in the long end.

I have the F4 non IS and the F2.8 II. While I do agree that the 2.8 can be unnecessarily large at times, I don't feel that it gets significantly more attention than the F4. Both are larger than a "normal" lens to the layperson and they're both white. I shot pictures at a family event yesterday with about 100 people attending, using both both lenses, starting with the F4 then switching to the mkII. I got a lot of comments while using the F4, but only one person noticed the switch to the mkII. He was a hobby shooter who has been planning and saving for a 70-200 of his own.

I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It larger than my 100-400L. Size and weight are not an issue if I need that lens. I wouldn't trade it for an f/4 IS. The question is really, "Do you need f/2.8?" I don't think I have any shots with this lens at f/4 or smaller. Mostly f/2.8, some f/3.2 and a smattering of f/3.5.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16057855
24-70 will also never get you the compression the 70-200 will provide in the long end.

meh. completely nuking the backgrounds is overrated and overdone. I prefer keeping the backgrounds in tact with a wider focal length, but a larger aperture to isolate the subject ( which the 24-70 can do, but is something best done with a fast prime).

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16058031
I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It larger than my 100-400L. Size and weight are not an issue if I need that lens. I wouldn't trade it for an f/4 IS. The question is really, "Do you need f/2.8?" I don't think I have any shots with this lens at f/4 or smaller. Mostly f/2.8, some f/3.2 and a smattering of f/3.5.

That's the real question. Unless you absolutely need the extra stop of light gathering that a 2.8 offers, my suggestion is to save the cash, size, and weight and stick to the F4. Again, YMMV!

Thanks for the replies. Looks like I should find another item to add to the collection.

Jerry