apples to almost apples - 70-200 f4II vs 70-200 f2,8 II

I have the f4 2.8 IS first version which is acting up - and the companies keep returning it to me saying that everything is fine
but the pictures have the final word and I cant trust the lens to perform consistently

so in the same price range for me in my local area
is the f4II or the 2.8II
besides weight
and the extra stop (comes with the weight)

and given the fact that I don't know really how to read the canon produced lens graphs

is there a known difference in the lens performance (i know that the f4II has been available for a very short time)
would you choose per stats of the lens performance or the 2.8 vs 4 or the weight/volume issue alone?

many thanks

If I were going to own a 70-200, it would be the f/4L II - primarily for size/weight considerations. I sold my f/4L IS about 6 months ago. I'm getting by just fine without a 70-200 at all.

I wouldn't buy either lens based on test charts. They're both excellent.

What are you using the lens for, and do you need the one stop of light that f/2.8 provides over f/4? If not, I'd go with the f/4.

Examining the lenses in your signature, two thoughts:

- The 85 II and 100L have you covered for any portrait shooting. Would you be using the f/2.8 for portraits when you have these top-shelf primes available?

- For me, the 100-400 II makes a 70-200 f/4 obsolete, unless you want the lighter weight for travel or casual shooting. You tell me, how often do you choose your 70-200 vs. your 100-400 II?

Big consideration for me is weight and use of the f2.8. I bought into the "you need the 70-200" as a new Canon user many years ago. At the time, the sales person was convincing and I bought the 70-200 f2.8. Since then, my useage is minimal mainly because of the weight of the lens. I bought the f4, 18 months ago and the same deal...minimum usage. Unless you have a specific use for this focal length and use your current ver 1 70-200 a lot, I'd think about the f4. Or....no 70-200 which is what I'm contemplating.

Just my opinion, but the 70-200 upgrades are turning out to be similar to the 24-105 ug.....big yawners. This go around, I didn't sell or pre-order before reading reviews.

notastockpikr wrote in post #18660399
Big consideration for me is weight and use of the f2.8. I bought into the "you need the 70-200" as a new Canon user many years ago. At the time, the sales person was convincing and I bought the 70-200 f2.8. Since then, my useage is minimal mainly because of the weight of the lens. I bought the f4, 18 months ago and the same deal...minimum usage. Unless you have a specific use for this focal length and use your current ver 1 70-200 a lot, I'd think about the f4. Or....no 70-200 which is what I'm contemplating.

Just my opinion, but the 70-200 upgrades are turning out to be similar to the 24-105 ug.....big yawners. This go around, I didn't sell or pre-order before reading reviews.

I've done a bit of paid work in the past (weddings, other sorts of gigs), and my f/2.8 II was indispensable, but since I'm not doing that sort of stuff anymore I started questioning the need for it in my lineup. It's such an excellent lens, and since I already have it (owned it since 2011) I figured why not just keep it. I don't know... since I have the 85L/100L/135L, and I'm not doing paid gigs anymore, it might be time to reconsider that position. Like you too, I may not run a 70-200 at all in the future.

The f/4 II is actually a decent update; the v1 had some softness at MFD from what I recall, and the addition of the modern IS w/ Mode 3 is welcomed. The f/2.8 update is definitely a yawn though, totally agreed, but since the vII is so excellent, there isn't much to improve upon really.

MatthewK wrote in post #18660460
...the v1 had some softness at MFD from what I recall, and the addition of the modern IS w/ Mode 3 is welcomed.

The version II is still soft @ 200mm and MFD. Check MY POST HERE for samples if you are interested. The phenomenon clears up by either shooting wider (180mm-ish) or by staying at 200mm and backing up a step or two.

The IS and AF are both fantastic.

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18660567
The version II is still soft @ 200mm and MFD. Check MY POST HERE for samples if you are interested. The phenomenon clears up by either shooting wider (180mm-ish) or by staying at 200mm and backing up a step or two.

The IS and AF are both fantastic.

Man, I thought for sure they'd have fixed that with the revision. Not that it's a huge issue, but come on, Canon...

If that is the only “Achilles’ heel“ then this is a fantastic lens. It’s not like the image quality completely falls apart… It just gets not quite as good as it usually is.

I don’t have any complaints about the rest of the lens. It does everything as well as or better than the f/2.8 version 2 (or 3 if the previews are accurate) except open up to f/2.8 of course.

MatthewK wrote in post #18660388
What are you using the lens for, and do you need the one stop of light that f/2.8 provides over f/4? If not, I'd go with the f/4.

.
Another thing to consider, besides the stop of light, is the effect that the aperture will have on depth of field.

For what I shoot, there are so many times when having f2.8 instead of f4 would really help to give just a bit more blur to tree branches and other background vegetation, and that little bit of additional blur would really improve the image. . I guess I am just very picky about how the things in the background look. . It matters to me a lot.

For me, wide apertures have never been about getting enough light or faster shutter speeds - they are all about the shallower depth of field.


.

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18660567
The version II is still soft @ 200mm and MFD. Check MY POST HERE for samples if you are interested. The phenomenon clears up by either shooting wider (180mm-ish) or by staying at 200mm and backing up a step or two.

This is very good to know, and I had not been aware of this issue until I read your post.

I have often contemplated getting back into the 70-200 game. . But a lot - and I mean really a lot - of my shooting is at MFD, regardless of what lens I am using. . I use my 100-400 v2 a heck of a lot, and a high percentage of my work with that lens is at 400mm and MFD. . Heck, even my Sigma 300-800 zoom is often used at 800mm and MFD.

If I got any lens, and it wasn't a stellar performer at maximum magnification, then I would be very disappointed, and the lens would be something that I would consider pretty much useless.

Thanks to your post I think I will be saved a lot of frustration. . Had I gone on to buy a 70-200, I would have been very disenchanted, simply because of how much max zoom at MFD means to me and my shooting style.

My old L-series 50-200mm is great at MFD and 200mm ...... perhaps I should pull that out of the bag more often. . The AF is incredibly slow and clunky, but 50-200mm is far more useful than 70-200mm.


.

you shoot that much at minimum focusing distance?

most wildlife shooters I know don't normally shoot at f2.8 unless they need more light

ed rader wrote in post #18660730
you shoot that much at minimum focusing distance?

Yes. . That much.

I was in the arctic a couple weeks ago, and used my 300-800mm almost the whole time. . Every day, there would be multiple occasions when I simply wasn't able to focus, because I'd gotten too close to the subject. That really made me wish that MFD on my 300-800mm was closer. . It really helps when you are photographing small critters like lemmings, and also when you want to do tight head shots of larger critters, such as this eider:

ed rader wrote in post #18660731
most wildlife shooters I know don't normally shoot at f2.8 unless they need more light

You're right - most wildlife guys don't shoot very often at f2.8 . . I think this is because they usually use long lenses, with focal lengths that don't normally come in f2.8 apertures.

But wouldn't you agree, that for opportunities such as this one taken at 135mm, that more background blur would be preferable?

Owning both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS, I am glad I kept the smaller lighter version when I purchased the larger, heavier Big Brother in 2011. Unless I "need" f/2.8, my wonderful f/4 L IS is in the bag. As I travel very heavy, the f/4 L IS pairs seamlessly with my 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/4 L IS for travel. Just sawing out the f/2.8 L IS Mark II for the f/4 L allows more to walk all day in Europe or hear state side with two Griped 5D Mark III's. Told you I travel heavy.
I too am interested in the new f/4 L IS offering. For me though, the most important thing to consider is the weight and feel of the lens on the body compared side by side with my current f/4 L IS. Either way, I am still going to keep my f/4 L IS as a back up or take to our other home location and not have to lug all my gear back and forth.
Fortunately I have three stocking dealers in my area all within in a 40 minute or less where I can see and test the lens before pulling out the wallet.
Regarding the f/4 or f/2.8, I can certainly recommend the smaller lighter option you currently have or purchasing the newer f/4 L IS option of the concerns of your old lens are rectified.

I have the f4 IS II. it is slighty different than the F4 IS. the front part of the barrel is slightly larger in diameter, color is slightly different and it's slightly heavier. in the real world I notice no difference in size and handling. I test my lenses by using them and I can say the new lens is wicked sharp.