70-200 f2.8 or f4

I tested the f4 non-IS out and found it suited my needs. So went for it a battery grip and a flash... found that it was better value for money as I don't need a tele that often.

EDIT : What I'm trying to say and didn't explain clearly is... test them out and see if you really need/want the extra stop and/or IS. If you do then go for it. If not then use it where it'll be better put to use.

good advice.

stenchlord wrote in post #3590736
I tested the f4 non-IS out and found it suited my needs. So went for it a battery grip and a flash... found that it was better value for money as I don't need a tele that often.

EDIT : What I'm trying to say and didn't explain clearly is... test them out and see if you really need/want the extra stop and/or IS. If you do then go for it. If not then use it where it'll be better put to use.

Cpcumming wrote in post #3588073
I have had the f4 for a couple of years and it is subpar in my opinion. I bought it for the weight, overall size and price as I don't need a zoom that often. I have been very dissapointed in the image quality. Forget shooting it wide open as its sharp nowhere at f4. So, its really a 70-200 f4.5. The difference between my f4 and my buddy's 70-200 f2.8 IS is night and day. Spend the extra, you'll be happier. If however, you're set on the f4 I'm selling mine and I'll give you a good deal ...

I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I find the characterization 'subpar' really surprising.

I have both the f/4 and the f/4 IS - both are very sharp at f/4 and the IS version is really quite amazing. These are two of Canon's best zooms and arguably the top zooms. I rarely sharpen images that come from either of these two lenses. Subpar? No way.

Guidance to the OP - if you need the narrow DOF of f/2.8 or you need the speed, then one of the f/2.8 versions is the ticket. If not, the f/4 versions work extremely well outdoors and are very impressive lenses. I'm ok with the f/4 version outdoors but indoors I use primes (which I like better than zooms).

J

Cpcumming wrote in post #3588073
I have had the f4 for a couple of years and it is subpar in my opinion. I bought it for the weight, overall size and price as I don't need a zoom that often. I have been very dissapointed in the image quality. Forget shooting it wide open as its sharp nowhere at f4. So, its really a 70-200 f4.5

You're definitely in a massive minority with this view of the 7-2f4. It's sharp wide open throughout the focal range and an absolute gem of a lens. It's possible you got a lemon.

LightRules wrote in post #3593693
You're definitely in a massive minority with this view of the 7-2f4. It's sharp wide open throughout the focal range and an absolute gem of a lens. It's possible you got a lemon.

I'm definitely surprised to read how much people like that lens. When I compare it to the 70-200 2.8 or even my 28-70 2.8 it just doesn't stack up - not only in relative sharpness but tonal quality and noise as well. These of course are very subjective observations, what's sharp, etc is relative. Like I say, mine's for sale if anyone's interested shoot me an email. I have to pay for the 35mm 1.4 I just bought - now that's a sharp lens!

You surely have a duff copy Cpcumming....both versions of the f4 are truly amazing.

Not sure what you mean about the lens not performing well in terms of 'noise'? You mean loud AF or noise interference on the image from the camera sensor?

I think you'd be very happy with the F4. I don't know first hand but everything I've been reading on these forums all support that the F4 has a little better IQ. And its size/weight make it a better travel lens. I went for the 2.8 for many of the reasons already mentioned. Also you might want to do some price checking. The 2.8 isn't double or 4x's as much as an F4.... well at least not here in the US. I just ordered a 2.8 IS for $1700 and I believe the F4 IS was around $1100. Best of luck choosing.

For the OP, it seems you don't need the f2.8. I own the f4 version and love the size and weight of it. I mainly shoot sports outdoors and I have high enough shutter speeds to stop the action, no worries there.

I do use the f2.8 version for low light photography and would be lost without it. Every time I'm packing gear for a day shoot, I take the f4 over the f2.8 because it's lighter, focuses closer, and isn't as bulky.

You said you could buy a lighting kit with the left over funds, that seems like a great plan.

I just had a peek at your sig.

If you have the money for the 2.8 non-IS tele then consider selling all your gear except the 50/1.8 and with your current funds + the funds from selling your current gear, buy a 17-55/2.8IS and 70-200/4L.

I now own the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens...

My first "L" tele-zoom was the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS model. I found that this was an excellent lens as far as build and IQ but, that is was not as versatile as I would have wished. I needed a LOT of light or a high ISO to be able to hand hold this lens.

I didn't have a LOT of light all the time - even here in Sunny San Diego County, California we have frequent (especially during the "June Gloom" time) heavily overcast days. Additionally, I want to shoot in shaded area or during early morning of late afternoon times.

Raising the ISO was O.K., but I didn't really like to shoot at a high ISO generally and when I shared a body with another lens, I would frequently find myself switching ISO which was a royal pain.

I craved for IS capability but, at first there were very few choices available.

The 75-300mm IS lens did not have the IQ I required.

The 70-300mm IS DO lens did not provide (IMO) good enough IQ to justify the high price.

I rented the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and found it to be heavier than I desired and larger in size than I wanted. The price was also pretty high.

Canon then introduced the neat 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and I decided to wait to purchase that lens because it originally had focus problems at 200-300mm in the portrait position. The front element also rotated while focusing making it inconvenient to use a CPL (however, I could have lived with this). At first, Canon refused to even acknowledge that there might be a problem with this lens and then recalled them for a fix.

Before the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens reappeared on distributors shelves, Canon unexpectedly (to me at least) introduced the lens that I really wanted: the 70-200mm f/4L IS which (IMO) is one of the greatest lenses that Canon offers. I purchased one of these fine lenses and I have been absolutely happy since.

The IQ is amazing even wide open and even paired with a 1.4x TC (which gives me an equivalent 448mm focal length.) It is relatively light for a lens of this focal range, yet its build is sturdy (as is the build of every "L" lens I have used). It is weatherproofed (even though my 1.6x bodies are not). Its AF is fast and snappy.

It is not really great in one area, minimum focus at 200mm. However, I seldom will use this lens at that F/L and focus distance.

The IS on this lens is simply wonderful. I am an older gent who doesn't have the rock-solid hold that I did in my younger days. Never-the-less, I can get virtually 100% keepers (regarding sharpness from lack of camera movement) using 200mm at 1/60 second and I can get a very respectable percentage of sharp shots using 1/30 second at that focal length.

I carry this lens with me everywhere in a top loading holster case with a wrist strap connected to the body. I use this lens so often now (3-4x more than the older non-IS model) that I have dedicated its own body to it,

It is fast becoming my favorite lens.

Interesting read, I have been considering the 70-200 f/2.8 but now you guys have me rethinking. So lets put this in a different persepctive for a moment.... if both lenses were the same cost which of the 2 would you then choose the f/2.8 or the f/4 ? For some cost is an issue but as mentioned lets remove that from the equation for now. I'm wanting the absolute best of these 2 mentioned so which would it be?

My reason for wanting one although I have the 100-400 I find that at times the 100 is still too much focal length and my 17-55 isn't enough. I'm more the outdoor type shooter things such as birds old barns wildlife and so forth. So now if the majority still says the f/4 thats what I'll do then that saves me enough for the 10-22 I'm needing as well.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and would not trade it for the 2.8 IS. There are times when I think the 2.8 would be handy, but my bag is already big and heavy enough. And I've rarely wished for the 2.8. The IS on the f4 is really amazing. I get sharp shots that I never would have gotten before. And it is sharper than any other lens I own.

No long drawn out story here, Im a simple man with very simple answers.

If you dont shoot alot indoors, then go for the f4.
With the saved cash you could get a EX flash unit that will in normal circumstances negate the extra stops of the other lens.

stenchlord wrote in post #3596402
If you have the money for the 2.8 non-IS tele then consider selling all your gear except the 50/1.8 and with your current funds + the funds from selling your current gear, buy a 17-55/2.8IS and 70-200/4L.

Or a Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 70-200 4L IS

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #3596742
Interesting read, I have been considering the 70-200 f/2.8 but now you guys have me rethinking. So lets put this in a different persepctive for a moment.... if both lenses were the same cost which of the 2 would you then choose the f/2.8 or the f/4 ? For some cost is an issue but as mentioned lets remove that from the equation for now. I'm wanting the absolute best of these 2 mentioned so which would it be?

My reason for wanting one although I have the 100-400 I find that at times the 100 is still too much focal length and my 17-55 isn't enough. I'm more the outdoor type shooter things such as birds old barns wildlife and so forth. So now if the majority still says the f/4 thats what I'll do then that saves me enough for the 10-22 I'm needing as well.

If cost was no issue I would get the f/4 still because my wife uses the lens also and the extra weight of the f/2.8 would not be worth it for what we shoot. But if you take the wife out of the equation then the f/2.8 would likely be in my bag. I have just started shooting sports and the f/2.8 would be nice to have and I use a monopod anyway so weight is not a factor for that type of shooting.