70-200 L Which one F4 or F2.8

Contemplating getting the 70-200 L. Due to cost not sure whether I want the F4 IS USM or the F2.8 USM (NON IS) I know the F4 has no Tripod mount. Was wondering if the almost double cost for the F2.8 USM is worth it. Therefore I want to know what others are using.......

Have 2 questions.

1). Which do you use the F4 IS USM or 2.8 USM or 2.8 IS USM.
2). If you have the F4. Did you buy the Tripod mount or is it not required due
to the smaller size of this lens or do you use the tripod mount on camera
instead or is it too heavy.

Thanks

Lar

I've got the F4 and love it.
I know somebody that had the 2.8 non-IS and loved it as well... although it's much bigger and way heavier.
The 2.8 is very handy and AF is bloody fast. Low light shots work much better with the 2.8.

I have the F4 and mostly use it outdoors. I have the kenko extension tubes and this lens is a dream with them. Probably the best combo for flower/garden pics. I used it as a walk around and just added a tube if I wanted closer. Just fabulous.

I didn't buy the ring and don't plan to. The lens isn't all that heavy, but there's definite strain on the connection. Heck, I even mounted it with the tubes on a tripod without problems.
It's RARELY on my tripod though. My wider angle lenses make it there more often.

I've heard almost every person that upgraded from the F4 to the 2.8 say the F4 is an amazing lens... some even miss it. That being said, there's a reason they have and keep the 2.8. That doesn't stop them from recommending the F4 though.

Lar,

The 70-200 f4 does not come with IS, so, if you want IS you will have to get the 70-200 2.8 IS. I can comment on both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 2.8IS as I have owned both, and still own the 2.8IS. The f4 version is small and light enough that hand holding is easy, you do not need the tripod ring. But then again, I don't use the tripod ring on the 2.8 IS much either.

The f4 is a fantastic lens and if your choices are either the f4 or the 2.8 without IS I would recommend the f4. Maybe pickup a used 70-200 f4 and a used 135 2.0 for the low light shots.

The 2.8 IS is incredible, handheld shots at 1/6 are not out of the question and certainly 1/30. Is it worth the extra $$, who knows. If you shoot a lot of lower light, slow shutter speeds then yes it is. If most of your shots will have not fall into that category I would not get it.

Good luck with your decision.

Tim

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L, and I find it to be pretty indispensable...

Steve

I have the 2.8 version and recently had the f/4 version. the 2.8 kills the 4. It's auto focus is lightning fast while the 4 was......meh. And i like the 2.8 because its more versitile, i can take it indoors or out, its awesome!!!!!! If i were you i'd get the 2.8. Happy shopping!!!!

I have the F4 - its awesome in good light. But obviously, it will lose out to a 2.8 in low light.

Dont have a tripod mount- dont think its required. I have used it extensively in the last 6-7 months and never seen the need for the mount.

The F4 is extremely easy to use given its weight compared to the 2.8. The final choice will depend on what you plan to shoot...

I was kinda in the same situation. Wanted faster than f/4 but not the size/weight of the f/2.8. I ended up with the 135L and a 1.4X TC. Fast and not too large/heavy.

I wanted to have f/2.8 aperture but f/4.0 price ... so I went with a used 80-200/2.8L instead .
I use it almost exclusively @ f/2.8, so I guess it was worth it.

I would suggest you to get the f/2.8 version. I don't find it that heavy, but extremely versatile.

Best regards,
Andy

bokeh on 70-200 f/2.8 are awesome

I tried the F/4 version at BH and found that the AF hunted in the shop and I think others confirm this. In the end I bought the F2.8 without IS because of the lower cost . Dennis

This is a decision you have to make for yourself. I valued the lower weight and the lower price more than the extra stop so I bought the f/4. I have and love the tripod mount (I have the cheaper black version and think it looks better on the lens due to the amount of black already on the lens). It is a particular benefit shooting verticals or straight down (which I regularly do photographing coins).
http://dougsmith.ancie​nts.info/camcoinsm.jpg

I too started with the f4 and it is a great optic but the f2.8 is a little better! I find the super-fast AF very helpful and to my eyes the contrast is better with the f2.8. That said, I am getting close to selling mine because I just do not use it all that much and it is a little heavy to be used as a paper-weight!

dougsmit wrote:
This is a decision you have to make for yourself. I valued the lower weight and the lower price more than the extra stop so I bought the f/4. I have and love the tripod mount (I have the cheaper black version and think it looks better on the lens due to the amount of black already on the lens). It is a particular benefit shooting verticals or straight down (which I regularly do photographing coins).
http://dougsmith.ancie​nts.info/camcoinsm.jpg

Cool set-up!
These lenses just ROCK with extension tubes. That's a must have accessory for either of these lenses.

you aren't sure and your options are to spend $600 or $1200. hmmmm. well i was sure and i bought the f4.

and if i am ever sure that i need the f2.8 i can sell the f4 for about what i paid for it.

i use the lens handheld....i don't own a tripod or monopod. i use iso 400 as a default but since much of my shooting is in bright light i often use iso 200 and sometimes 100.

ed rader

I have the 2.8 and am in love with it - it is very heavy though so bear that in mind.