I've been thinking about getting a long zoom to compliment my 24-70 Mark II for my 6D camera. If money and size were no object I'd get the 70-200 2.8IS Mark II, but I can't justify the size or afford the price of this lens.
I don't necessarily need the 2.8 aperture, but what I'm not willing to compromise on is image quality. I had initially written off the 70-200 f/4IS because while it had great sharpness, a lot of the pictures in the lens sample thread seemed less contrasty...especially when compared to the 70-200 Mark II picture thread. Then someone pointed out this was more dependant on the ability of the photographers, rather than the lens itself.
Specifically for those that have OWNED BOTH LENSES (70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II and 70-200 f/4 IS). If aperture and everything else were equal, do you notice a difference in the color, contrast, and image quality between these two lenses?