Canon EF 70-200 f/4L upgrade

Hello guys,

I want to ask for help as I don't know, if I will do the right thing or not.

I currently have the 70-200 f/4L lens, the NON-IS one and with owning 100-400 L IS II, the smaller one became kinda obsolete to me. I recently shifted into the animal and ZOO photography and while 100-400 is incredible lens to my airshow and F1 photos, it just lacks in indoor and poorly lit ZOO exhibits.

So with this, cashback and possible money for it, I started to think about replacing 70-200 for it's f/2.8 III IS variant. It's a really big amount of money, so I want to ask you, will I improve my problems with 100-400 indoors with pairing it with 70-200 f/2.8L III IS instead of f/4L one? Or I could be fine with just buying a monopode for example and use f/4 indoor? I also can borrow 85mm f/1.4L IS, but don't know, if the reach will be enough as I have Full Frame camera.

Thank you very much for any help.

Heya,

Honestly, the 70-200 F4L IS would be much cheaper, its quite sharp, and a monopod will go a LONG way for low light.

Alternatively, source a 70-200 F2.8L II (2) and save quite a bit too, very sharp lens, good IS. Still will be a good idea to take a monopod.

Going from F5.6 with your 100-400 to F4 is a stop and F2.8 is another stop, so if you think 2 stops of light will help your problems, and that ISO is not an option (don't know what camera you're using) then you know where you can go next with things. It obviously depends if we're talking about rapidly moving animals at the zoo or just animals mulling around or at rest which don't move fast.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #19183638
Heya,

Honestly, the 70-200 F4L IS would be much cheaper, its quite sharp, and a monopod will go a LONG way for low light.

Alternatively, source a 70-200 F2.8L II (2) and save quite a bit too, very sharp lens, good IS. Still will be a good idea to take a monopod.

Going from F5.6 with your 100-400 to F4 is a stop and F2.8 is another stop, so if you think 2 stops of light will help your problems, and that ISO is not an option (don't know what camera you're using) then you know where you can go next with things. It obviously depends if we're talking about rapidly moving animals at the zoo or just animals mulling around or at rest which don't move fast.

Very best,

Thank you! I looked into f/4L IS and you are right, I should took that one in the first time Now, if I take the IS f/4, with all the discounts, the 2.8 III is 400 USD more. Not sure, if it would justify it.

I have 6D mkII. I go as high as ISO 12800 in that areas, so don't know.

Both group of animals, depends on them

awacsCZE wrote in post #19183643
Thank you! I looked into f/4L IS and you are right, I should took that one in the first time Now, if I take the IS f/4, with all the discounts, the 2.8 III is 400 USD more. Not sure, if it would justify it.

I have 6D mkII. I go as high as ISO 12800 in that areas, so don't know.

Both group of animals, depends on them

Eh, not sure where or what discounts or what prices you're looking at.

But here's what I'm talking about:

https://www.keh.com …-telephoto-zoom-lens.html

If you can get a 2.8L III for $400 more, by all means, do it.

If ISO 12,800 is your limit, gaining 2 stops of light from ISO (which is just amplified signal, not really adding light) is asking a lot. So really you can get more light from a monopod and IS combination and of course up to +2 stops from F2.8 from F5.6.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #19183645
Eh, not sure where or what discounts or what prices you're looking at.

But here's what I'm talking about:

https://www.keh.com …-telephoto-zoom-lens.html

If you can get a 2.8L III for $400 more, by all means, do it.

If ISO 12,800 is your limit, gaining 2 stops of light from ISO (which is just amplified signal, not really adding light) is asking a lot. So really you can get more light from a monopod and IS combination and of course up to +2 stops from F2.8 from F5.6.

Very best,

Nevermind, I did bad math quickly

I miscalculated, the different would be $700...

There's a big weight difference between the f/4 and f/2.8, also. I shoot with a older f/4...I like it.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jZ9​phD

Consider renting the lenses you are thinking of buying to try them first. Then hopefully you'll know if you can use an f/4 IS lens rather than a much larger/heavier/expensi​ve f/2.8 IS lens. (tripod/monopod + longer exposure in low light????)

These are two very different lenses, the FL being the only common thing between them. I won't consider moving from the F4 to the F2.8 an "upgrade." In some ways, it may be a downgrade. So, you should make this decision taking into account the totality of your usage model.

Disclaimer: I own both lenses, the IS Mark I for the F4 and the Mark II for the F2.8. Each fulfils a separate and distinct role and I don't hold one to be an upgrade over the other.

I had the f4L for about a year before my kids started playing volleyball. I got the 2.8L II - obviously for indoor sports (and zoos with lots of shade / indoor spaces) and it was a huge upgrade over the f4 lens for low light. I also did notice a difference in faster focusing speed (it is also weather sealed, where I do not believe the f4 lens is - I have travelled quite a bit with the 2.8). The weight difference is huge, but I'm a big guy and regularly carry the 2.8 around with me for the whole day and have never regretted leaving the monopod at home - sure, I have one big Popeye arm, but whatever. While my f4 was very sharp and light, I have no regrets at all about getting the 2.8. For me and my uses it was an amazing upgrade.

Intheswamp wrote in post #19183928
There's a big weight difference between the f/4 and f/2.8, also. I shoot with a older f/4...I like it.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jZ9​phD IMG_8535-1s (Custom) by Ed Welch, on Flickr

I am used to 100-400, so it would be normal for me

I love my 70-200 f/4, but the lack of IS is starting to show. I was thinking if adding 100 mm f/2.8L Macro would be better for indoor.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19184052
Consider renting the lenses you are thinking of buying to try them first. Then hopefully you'll know if you can use an f/4 IS lens rather than a much larger/heavier/expensi​ve f/2.8 IS lens. (tripod/monopod + longer exposure in low light????)

Of course, just in these times, the renting is not that simple...

I was thinking about adding 100mm L Macro to the collection instead. Will test them and see.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19184052
(tripod/monopod + longer exposure in low light????)

What did you mean? Bad idea?

Scrumhalf wrote in post #19184343
These are two very different lenses, the FL being the only common thing between them. I won't consider moving from the F4 to the F2.8 an "upgrade." In some ways, it may be a downgrade. So, you should make this decision taking into account the totality of your usage model.

Disclaimer: I own both lenses, the IS Mark I for the F4 and the Mark II for the F2.8. Each fulfils a separate and distinct role and I don't hold one to be an upgrade over the other.

Thank you! I'll think about them. I also added 100mm L Macro to the list, so I'll test them and see.

DrMitch wrote in post #19184371
I had the f4L for about a year before my kids started playing volleyball. I got the 2.8L II - obviously for indoor sports (and zoos with lots of shade / indoor spaces) and it was a huge upgrade over the f4 lens for low light. I also did notice a difference in faster focusing speed (it is also weather sealed, where I do not believe the f4 lens is - I have travelled quite a bit with the 2.8). The weight difference is huge, but I'm a big guy and regularly carry the 2.8 around with me for the whole day and have never regretted leaving the monopod at home - sure, I have one big Popeye arm, but whatever. While my f4 was very sharp and light, I have no regrets at all about getting the 2.8. For me and my uses it was an amazing upgrade.

Thanks! I will rent them and will see, which is the best for me. I added the 100 mm L f/2.8 to the list, so I'll see.

awacsCZE wrote in post #19183633
Hello guys,

I want to ask for help as I don't know, if I will do the right thing or not.

I currently have the 70-200 f/4L lens, the NON-IS one and with owning 100-400 L IS II, the smaller one became kinda obsolete to me. I recently shifted into the animal and ZOO photography and while 100-400 is incredible lens to my airshow and F1 photos, it just lacks in indoor and poorly lit ZOO exhibits.

So with this, cashback and possible money for it, I started to think about replacing 70-200 for it's f/2.8 III IS variant. It's a really big amount of money, so I want to ask you, will I improve my problems with 100-400 indoors with pairing it with 70-200 f/2.8L III IS instead of f/4L one? Or I could be fine with just buying a monopode for example and use f/4 indoor? I also can borrow 85mm f/1.4L IS, but don't know, if the reach will be enough as I have Full Frame camera.

Thank you very much for any help.

Definitely IS will help in allowing slower shutter speeds hand held of a stagnant subject.
I own the 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II.
Loved using the f/4 L IS when purchased in 2009. With the introduction of the f/2.8 L IS Mark II not long after, I purchased one almost 10 years to the day. Used the f/2.8 almost exclusively until returning home from a trip from Italy in 2016. How do I travel with all my gear and lighten the load, swap out the big heavy f/2.8 for the smaller lighter f/4 L IS. My f/4 L IS was in the bag unless I needed f/2.8, like in low light two tools for different jobs and allowing less stress on the body.
In the summer of 2019 for an upcoming trip to Greece, I decided to treat the Greek to the new 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. Well done Canon in improving an already great lens ten years prior. This lens all that. Improved IS for hand holding Bracketed images in the dark Cathedrals in Arhens and Santorini to climbing the Acropolis, the right tool for the job applies.
Tough choice between the extra stop of light versus the the smaller lighter all at around half the price of the f/2.8 L IS Mark III.
Sooooo many choices.

Nick5 wrote in post #19184634
Definitely IS will help in allowing slower shutter speeds hand held of a stagnant subject.
I own the 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II.
Loved using the f/4 L IS when purchased in 2009. With the introduction of the f/2.8 L IS Mark II not long after, I purchased one almost 10 years to the day. Used the f/2.8 almost exclusively until returning home from a trip from Italy in 2016. How do I travel with all my gear and lighten the load, swap out the big heavy f/2.8 for the smaller lighter f/4 L IS. My f/4 L IS was in the bag unless I needed f/2.8, like in low light two tools for different jobs and allowing less stress on the body.
In the summer of 2019 for an upcoming trip to Greece, I decided to treat the Greek to the new 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. Well done Canon in improving an already great lens ten years prior. This lens all that. Improved IS for hand holding Bracketed images in the dark Cathedrals in Arhens and Santorini to climbing the Acropolis, the right tool for the job applies.
Tough choice between the extra stop of light versus the the smaller lighter all at around half the price of the f/2.8 L IS Mark III.
Sooooo many choices.

Yeah

I love the f/4L for how compact it is. I take my 100-400 with me and it's enough... 9 hours on the F1 race and airshows... ouch... but the 2.8 II cost a kidney and half. I added the 100mm macro L tot he list, so I will test them all and see.