70-200 f2.8 / f4 sharpness and IQ

Is it true that the F4 holds down a lot better on sharpness and IQ?

I'm sure i read this a few times somewhere, is this really the case? Why is that? Is it because the f2.8 has IS? What about the new F4 IS lens, will that still retain same sharpness and IQ? Please discuss, cheers.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS and have previously owned the 70-200 f/4L for quite some time. I have noticed that both lenses at f/4 delivered the same exact image quality, which was, of course, stunning. However, if I had to pick a winner, it would be the f/4L as it did seem more consistent. Obviously when I go down to f/2.8, the comparison becomes pointless.

At the end of the day, the IQ among all three 70-200Ls is basically the same. Any leads are honestly highly insignificant. I wouldn't let IQ determine which of the lenses you would get. They're all fantastic.

im still favouring the f2.8 IS as i would like to hand hold this with letting as much light in as possible for weddings etc.

But the F4 is so much cheaper, not sure how the new F4 IS will handle.

I know this is completely off-topic, but, Yella Fella, what's the wide (24mm) end of the 24-70 like on the 20D?

I only played around with a 70-200 IS before and never had any real pohots I would use to compare.
My old 70-200f4 was amazingly sharp wide open. So if something could be sharper then that I really dont know how.

70-200 F4 is a fantastic lens, the only real difference is size and weight (aperture size of course) . I doubt you could tell the difference between all the 70-200's .

go to photozone.de to read their MTF values for each of the 70-200L lenses from Canon. The f/4L is the best, the f/2.8 is next best, the f/2.8IS is third. The differences between the lenses are relatively small, so that in practical photos you won't discern them easily! Let us all quit pixel peeping and go outside and SHOOT and enjoy our mutual avocation!!!

Having owned both, I can say that IQ is equally stunning on both. If there is a difference, it will only be apparent under controlled conditions. As a photographer, I'll take the f/2.8L everytime as I do not hesitate to shoot mine wide open at least 90% of the time.

Both will also work with a Canon 1.4x TC. And work well they will.

What the hell is IQ?

Skippy29 wrote in post #2097231
What the hell is IQ?

Image quality

Yella Fella wrote in post #2096060
im still favouring the f2.8 IS as i would like to hand hold this with letting as much light in as possible for weddings etc.

But the F4 is so much cheaper, not sure how the new F4 IS will handle.

i just saw on B&H... looks like the f4 IS is cheaper by $350 compared to the f2.8 IS (PSAUG).

but will f4 give you that creamy bokeh and how well would it work in low light conditions? because i want the f2.8 IS for the low light wedding conditions too!!

Personally if I am buying a 70-200mm IS version, I would pay the extra $350 for the f2,8 version. I think the f4 IS version is a little too pricy, then again I think the f2.8 version is but I would pay the $350 for the best of the best and to insure I wont ever ever have to buy this range of zoom again until the day Canon changes mounts (which then I will just but 5Ds and 1D MKIIs for a hundred bucks)

I'm with CJM on this one.

If the extra weight does not bother you, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is IMO the best of all three OPERATIONALLY.
A comparison on IQ alone at the same aperture values is good and sufficient only if you shoot cereal boxes in your pantry.

If the extra weight is a significant factor for ya, the new f/4 IS version will most likely be operationally the best lens of the four.

Now, the decision comes down to dollars and cents.