Canon 70-200L IS F4 vs. F2.8

I want to get one of these for outdoor all-day events - mainly marching band competitions. I've read quite a bit on the comparisons between the 2 and the opinion seems to be that the 2.8 is a monster of a camera to haul around for a full day.

Anyone have experience with either of these lenses for all-day events and care to share advice?

Thanks,

Tim

I have the f2.8 non is version. All day long on non gripped 7D2 or 5D3. Doable. And I'm way pass 20, and not a dude. But you do start 'resting' in different poses as the day wears on. probably having a hip or shoulder holster would help me out but I haven't sprung for one yet.

I think the IS version would add quite a bit of weight, and for me it isn't nessasary.. I'm able to hold pretty steady, even at 200mm at 1/250 of a second shutter, although I prefer 1/400, and I can get sharp images. Most of the time I have to be up higher(shutter) due to subject motion, anyways.

Unless you're shooting in cloudy/dark conditions, for an outdoor event I'd just go with the f/4. It's very small with clarity/sharpness. The f/2.8 is perfectly doable, but it *is* a little more fatiguing after a while and is quite a bit larger, physically. I own the f/2.8 MkII, which is great but also definitely large and bulky.

I have both

selling the F/2.8

DEPENDS on the body you have

New canon sensors makes F4 very usable in most cases...buy a fast prime for those bokeh needs

The f/2.8 IS isn't a struggle if you handle it right. Weight isn't the issue, balance is.

Find the balance point and the perceived weight reduces significantly.

Weight is beneficial for steady handling without relying on IS when focus speed/tracking is the priority.

Thanks everyone! I have a 70D with very good low-light performance. Probably going to go with the F4 as it is about half the cost and I'm not sure I'll need 2.8 all that much.

tspencer1 wrote in post #18155997
I want to get one of these for outdoor all-day events - mainly marching band competitions. I've read quite a bit on the comparisons between the 2 and the opinion seems to be that the 2.8 is a monster of a camera to haul around for a full day.

Anyone have experience with either of these lenses for all-day events and care to share advice?

Thanks,

Tim

I went with the f/4 IS version. mostly because it's half the price and half the weight. The f/2.8 is a better lens in some respects, but other than the stop of light, the f/4 IS is very close. I'm happy with my purchase. The AF and IS are both terrific, but note that the IS on the f/4 model is VERY NOISY. It clicks noticeably when operating. This is not an indication of a malfunction or other problem. It is a well known aspect of that lens. You will also notice that shooting at 150-200mm at the minimum focus distance will produce somewhat soft images. Again, this is normal for this lens. For normal use this is an extremely sharp lens.

I have the F4 IS version and happy with its performance. I have never had the need for the extra stop that F2.8 offers, but didnt need the extra cost either.

tspencer1 wrote in post #18155997
I want to get one of these for outdoor all-day events - mainly marching band competitions. I've read quite a bit on the comparisons between the 2 and the opinion seems to be that the 2.8 is a monster of a camera to haul around for a full day.

Anyone have experience with either of these lenses for all-day events and care to share advice?

Thanks,

Tim

Tim.
I have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II....yes both.
Definitely get the IS version....but which one.

Years ago I was Debating between the f/4 L IS and then the f/2.8 L IS Version 1.
The image quality of the f/4 L IS was ahead of the f/2.8 L IS Version 1. Plus there were rumors of an f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the way.
So I bought the smaller, lighter, less expensive f/4 L IS.
As I knew the f/2.8 L IS Mark II would be in my future, I used the f/4 L IS with great results. Sure it's f/4, but the results were fantastic. A year later, I bought the f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Big improvement compared to the f/2.8 version 1. Plus I got the additional stop of light that I needed and wanted. So what to do with the f/4 L IS. Sure I could sell it. I could keep as a back up or when I felt like lightening the load in the shoulder bag. For about three years, the f/4 sat in the corner waiting for its day to shine.
After a trip to Venice and Florence with a pair of Gripped 5D Mark III's the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, my shoulder and back were killing me. Since I am in my early 50's it's time for me to think more about my well being than the additional stop. For our trip to Iceland this July I decided to swap out the bigger, heavier, f/2.8 L,IS for the 70-200 f/4 L IS. What a huge difference in weight. Not just shooting, but in the weight of the bag.
I now leave the f/4 l IS on one of the bodies and swap out if needed when f/2.8 is needed.
Tomorrow I am shooting the game where I played collegiate Football. Most likely I will take the f/2.8 L IS along with 100-400 and others. However if my f/2.8 was in for repair, I could certainly do the job with the f/4 L IS, happily.
Once I hear people allude to the weight of the f/2.8 L IS, I whole heartedly recommend the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

Thanks Mark, John and Nick! Great response from this forum - nice place. I'm about 99% convinced I'm going with the F4. I'll be doing marching band competitions all-day (8-10) hours both in daylight and under the lights. I currently use the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM that came with the 70D kit and this is actually a pretty good lens.

I already get good results - but would like the extra stop at the far focal lengths and any more sharpness I can get.

Thanks all-

Tim

tspencer1 wrote in post #18156671
Thanks Mark, John and Nick! Great response from this forum - nice place. I'm about 99% convinced I'm going with the F4. I'll be doing marching band competitions all-day (8-10) hours both in daylight and under the lights. I currently use the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM that came with the 70D kit and this is actually a pretty good lens.

I already get good results - but would like the extra stop at the far focal lengths and any more sharpness I can get.

Thanks all-

Tim

The 55-250 is a very good lens at the price. But you will be thrilled with the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is just a joy to use.You will be as thrilled with its professional build and handling as much as with the great images it produces.

Keep in mind that that all zooms suffer from focus breathing, and if you compare image sizes between two lenses at the same focal length and at distances less than infinity, one lens may produce larger images than the other. The 70-200 displays this phenomenon less than some other lenses. What this means is, if you were taking a portrait of someone 20 feet away at 200mm with both your current lens and the 70-200 f/4 IS, the subject of the resulting image may look like you zoomed in closer with one of the lenses. At infinity the images should be close to identical in size. I'm mentioning this only because people who have experience with only a limited number of lenses don't realize this and get frustrated thinking that either something is wrong or their new acquisition doesn't really have the focal range claimed for it.

Good choice

But dont rule out the 70-200F4 Non IS

Its is as sharp, possibly sharper than the 70-200 F4 IS version

I dont miss not having IS. I just keep shutter above 1/160..not an issue

+1 this. I went through this some years ago and decided on the f/4 IS for precisely this reason. Have never once regretted it.

I have the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM. But I also have the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The f/4 version gets used only when I travel by airplane and similar occasions. It's more common that I used the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM than the f/4 70-200 lens.

Thanks everyone!