phantelope wrote in post #16185935
ever since I bougth the f4IS I've had that itch to get the 2.8, then I pack my gear and realize it would never fit in any of my 3 bags with all the other gear AND it would add quite some weight.
I don't shoot events or concerts etc, never would dream of shooting weddings, so there's really no benefit for me. I'd add significant weight and cost, money I could use for something else. There's still room for one lens not the size of a Canon canon in my bag, once I sell my 60mm macro. Either something wider than my 24-70 or something fixed.
You really have to ask yourself if the extra stop is something you will need more than occasionally. You'll also stand out much more with that big lens, I find the f4 already big enough, the 2.8 would create even more stupid comments by others, LOL
IQ is fantastic on my lens, I can't imagine the 2.8 doing anything better worth the extra money and weight. Not for anything I take pictures of. I see it more as a specialized lens for those that actually need the extra stop. I'm not into birding etc, or I'd get something with more reach than 200 anyway.
You could always rent one for a weekend and play with it, go for a hike or what ever you like doing and see how it compares.
LOL. you sound just lke me on centain days ! (or I sound like you...whichever you prefer). the only thing I can say is that I have the events of the kids and the unofficial events of the family to take care of. thanks for your time to answer.
RickRandhawa wrote in post #16185967
Haha, you're going through the same thing I did. I'll say this much...those in this thread that went from 70-200 f/4 (non IS) to MKII, prolly did notice a big improvement in IQ. From the f/4IS, I'm not sure. I definitely don't.
Check out this thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php?t=1312355
After having owned both, I agree with the general consensus.
thanks for the link and your answer. this is what i am generally afraid of - the build up being more than the product!
ben805 wrote in post #16186140
Owned the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1, 4.0 IS, and now the mk2. The 4.0 IS saturation tend to be on the cold side but it was good overall. My mk2 copy is slightly sharper across the range than the 4.0 IS but the extra stop diffuse the background more so I like it better for portraiture. but not my choice for hiking though.
thanks for your experience. do you find the diffuse background better to your taste at f2.8 only? or are you comparing the 2.8II and the 4.0IS at f4.0, 5.6 etc as well?
DanAnCan wrote in post #16186145
Its worth the cost / weight... Really.
Its not that heavy... If you're concerned about it, also grab a Black-Rapid Strap, the weight will disappear!
When I Camp and Hike/Portage, I carry a 300 Prime & the 70-200 along with a Canoe and a backpack... Its not so bad
thanks. just a canoe? too bad it isn't a catamaran! (just kidding! )
Davd901 wrote in post #16186308
I have the 70-200 tamron and just bought the b-grip system three weeks ago. Works great for me. I do a fair amount of hiking and have no issues with the weight. Comfortable and no strap to mess with. Do it.
i just looked up that system since I hadn't heard of it. With all due respect, if I ever used it around my family I believe my children would poke fun at me from here until my (very early) death! They wouldn't let me see or speak to their friends and basically annoy me to the end of time! (only said tongue and cheek!)
ceegee wrote in post #16186404
I used to have the non-IS version of the f2.8, and found it a real pain to carry around on family activities. In the end, I left it at home more often than not, just so I wouldn't have to deal with the weight of the lens in addition to everything else kids seem to need on outings! I now have the f4 IS and am much happier. I would not go back to a f2.8; the f4 IS gives outstanding image quality and I can count on one hand the number of times I've missed the f2.8 capability.
If I was making a lot of money from my photography, or regularly photographing low-light events (sports, weddings, etc.), then it would be another matter. But for family photography it's hard to beat the f4 IS.
thanks for the above. Again you brought up some real concerns
it is amazing how many people are for the f4IS for the same reasons!
mesakid wrote in post #16186423
Sigma 70-200 is a good alternative. If you don't need low light performance, the f4 non is is a good bargain, even a used one.
thanks for your time
i am not necessarily looking at alternatives or good bargains since i already have the f4IS and I can easily afford the 2.8 II - i am trying to decide if I want to cart it around....
but thanks for your time in answering my question