Which should be sharper? 70 200 f4 or 2.8?

I have had a 70 200 f4 L for a few years now. Really like the lens. Just no IS. So I was able to get a 70 200 IS 2.8 version 1 at a great price at my local camera store. So I thought it would be a great upgrade < I would have IS and the extra stop of light.

But I have a question. As far as image quality goes which should be sharper? The f4 or the 2.8? I done a few comparison shots both shot at f4 and everything else the same.

From the many threads I've read over the years (but with no personal experience), I think the consensus is that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 Mark I, but the f/2.8 Mark II may be a bit sharper still.

What I CAN say is that if you try to compare the lenses at f/2.8, the f/4 lens will lose.
I guess what that means is that the reason for getting the f/2.8 is the speed - you won't gain or lose much in terms of sharpness.


Others with their fingers closer to the pulse will doubtless chime in soon.

Yes, the f/4L IS is touted to be slightly superior to the f/2.8L IS and slightly inferior to the f/2.8L IS II. However, the f4L non-IS is touted to be slightly inferior to the f/4L IS lens.

However, if you were shown forty images with ten shot by each lens (f/2.8L IS, f/2.8L IS II, f/4L and f/4L IS) in real world conditions, I doubt very much that you would get a passing grade in identifying which image was shot with each lens.

The f/2.8L IS would be, IMO a major upgrade to the f/4L (non-IS) simply because of its Image Stabilization capabilities which would allow hand holding in lower light levels…

I don't think sharpness is your main concern here. Weight, price, max. aperture, IS, AF speed etc. seem to be the most significant difference, if you ask me. They're both supposed to be plenty sharp.

I have both these same lenses as you do. Both are excellent lenses. The following is my experience of using both lenses over about 5 or 6 years. From f4 onwards both are equally as sharp and contrasty, i.e. the f4 is sharp wide open, the f2.8 is not sharp wide open. The f4 is a great travel lens in good daylight due to light weight and smaller size. The f2.8 I prefer for portraiture, nicer bokeh, faster glass, but a large and heavy lens. If I could do it all over again i would go with the newer f4L with IS as a good compromise. I cannot justify the cost of a new f2.8L IS mkii.

Had almost all (besides f4 IS) and here is my take in order of sharpness

70-200mm f4 non IS
70-200mm f2.8 IS I
70-200mm f2.8 non IS
70-200mm f4 IS
70-200mm f2.8 IS II

jefzor wrote in post #16543364
I don't think sharpness is your main concern here. Weight, price, max. aperture, IS, AF speed etc. seem to be the most significant difference, if you ask me. They're both supposed to be plenty sharp.

Could just be that I am looking at it wrong. But $1500 compared to $500 there should be a pretty good difference. But in this instance it is not. The f4 is considerably sharper. Even after micro adjusting the focus.

you aren't paying for 'sharpness' in that price difference; you're paying for IS and a larger aperture. Now, whether anything can be done about the results you're getting is a different story; if you have some comparison shots to post, we might be able to give you more of a gauge on whether the results are normal or if you need to have it looked at

Really crude I know but you can see the difference clearly. Both were on a tripod shot at f4 ISO 100

Both are shot from about 7 feet away with heavy crop


First is the f4 and the second is the 2.8 with IS turned off

Camera shake in both shots, not really a decent comparison. Second one looks like focus isn't even close, not just soft. 1 second exposure really wont be helping things either

The order bobbyz put is typical of what users here overall typically say for the lenses wide open. Some opinions will vary. Seems the biggest non agreement/argument seems to be the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS MKI, some switch the order. Most agree all are sharp.

I disagree with say_cheese, I think the 70-200MK I is sharp wide open - it just gets sharper as you stop down.

In reference to the f/4 IS vs the MKI. They are close wide open, IMO if you take the MKI to f/4 it is as sharp or sharper than the f/4 IS. The differences! The f/2.8 can do f/4, but the f/4 can't do f/2.8. The f/4 has theoretical 4-stop IS, while the MKI has only 3-stop. The f/2.8 is significantly heavier than the f/4.

first is f4 second is 2.8 with IS turned off

Been messing with micro adjust a little more and am getting it pretty close

Lloydd wrote in post #16543668
Camera shake in both shots, not really a decent comparison. Second one looks like focus isn't even close, not just soft. 1 second exposure really wont be helping things either

Agree, both sample shots look bad IMHO.

Edited - I meant first two shots, not the last two.

Wow,,,,,,,,,,,,

jimewall wrote in post #16543704
The order bobbyz put is typical of what users here overall typically say for the lenses wide open. Some opinions will vary. Seems the biggest non agreement/argument seems to be the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS MKI, some switch the order. Most agree all are sharp.

I disagree with say_cheese, I think the 70-200MK I is sharp wide open - it just gets sharper as you stop down.

In reference to the f/4 IS vs the MKI. They are close wide open, IMO if you take the MKI to f/4 it is as sharp or sharper than the f/4 IS. The differences! The f/2.8 can do f/4, but the f/4 can't do f/2.8. The f/4 has theoretical 4-stop IS, while the MKI has only 3-stop. The f/2.8 is significantly heavier than the f/4.

Didn't mean to imply that the f2.8 is soft wide, its certainly quite usable, but is as you say even better when stopped down.