70-200 L Which one F4 or F2.8

If you get the f/4 you will regret it for the rest of your entire life!!!! There is never enough light to go around and the f/2.8 will save your a_ _ so many times you will thank me!!! It is worth the chronic arthritic aching you will develop in both arms holding this svelt sucker-of-lense...but when they see the photos...you da man/woman!!

I wouldn't go THAT far...

I purchased the f/4, and while I like the image quality, I don't like the fact that it hunts in low light. I've always regretted not buying the f/2.8 version.

I have the f/4 beacuse of the size and weight. It's a fantastic lens that is reported to be every bit as sharp as the f/2.8 version, with some reviews saying it's sharper. Yes the AF can hunt in low light, like most lenses that are slower than f/2.8, but I use my outdoors during the day for 99% of my shots, so I've never had a problem.

f/4 1.56 lbs and 6.8" long
f/2.8 2.8 lbs and 7.6" long
f/2.8 IS 3.5 lbs and 7.7" long

If you don't mind heavy and cost isn't a factor I'd go for the IS version of the f/2.8, otherwise I'd go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. If budget is your main concern, go for the f/4 or the Sigma, and if portability is what you want, go for the f/4. All excellent choices, you just have to decide for yourself.

RAitch....I was exagerating a tad, yes...was just trying to add some 'passion' to my post. But I had the f/4 for a while. Nice and light...great lense! The only thing I missed quite often was the speed of my f/2.8. That is just my problem and everybody has to discover their own photographic style. Another thing I recently found out was that I almost never use the focal length combo offered by my 24-70 lens as compared to my other lenses. It is still a stellar lense...for another photographer. IMHO

I bought the 2.8 (non-IS)... no complains at all. When light is terrible, I just increase the ISO....

Now, if I would win the lottery... I guess I would buy the IS version... but so far I haven't been on a situation where the missed the shot because I didn't had it.

It is heavy... but after a while you get use to it.

Leo.

I bought the f/4 version and found the AF Speed to be nice a quick. I have also used the 2.8 IS many times and feel its very close. As far as AF hunting in low light, ill have to give mine some good testing to see if this is what I come up with too.

Why is it that everytime an OP asks for advice on either the 70200L non-IS f2.8 and 70200L f4, someone has to come in and suggest the Sigma? It's getting old. BTW, have you considered the excellent Sigma 70200EX?

fStopJojo wrote:
Why is it that everytime an OP asks for advice on either the 70200L non-IS f2.8 and 70200L f4, someone has to come in and suggest the Sigma? It's getting old. BTW, have you considered the excellent Sigma 70200EX?

So how do they compare as far as quality Canon 70-200 F2.8 vs Sigma 70-200F2.8 any one done any tests or know of a site that has.

found this

http://www.naturephoto​graphers.net/mg0600-1.html

http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/70200exl

fStopJojo wrote:
Why is it that everytime an OP asks for advice on either the 70200L non-IS f2.8 and 70200L f4, someone has to come in and suggest the Sigma? It's getting old. BTW, have you considered the excellent Sigma 70200EX?

Because YOU keep giving them Sigmas such good reviews

I have the f2.8. Love the DOF.

burntbizzkit wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/70200exl

Interesting results. I do prefer the back with Gold ring matches the body .