70-200 f2.8 or f4

Never considered the weight..... What is in the f/2.8 lens thats making it 2 lbs heavier?
Also I looked and the f/4 version doesn't come with a tripod collar is it needed for this lens?
I'm going to assume the f/2.8 is a push pull type zoom like the 100-400

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #3597053
Never considered the weight..... What is in the f/2.8 lens thats making it 2 lbs heavier?
Also I looked and the f/4 version doesn't come with a tripod collar is it needed for this lens?
I'm going to assume the f/2.8 is a push pull type zoom like the 100-400

The f/2.8 requires larger glass and is longer than the f/4. The tripod collar is NOT included on the f/4 and is not needed but I bought a third party collar for $50 to use with my monopod for easier transition from landscape to portrait orientation.

And none of the 70-200s are push-pull. They all have zoom rings.

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #3597053
Never considered the weight..... What is in the f/2.8 lens thats making it 2 lbs heavier?
Also I looked and the f/4 version doesn't come with a tripod collar is it needed for this lens?
I'm going to assume the f/2.8 is a push pull type zoom like the 100-400

f/2.8 is twice as much area as f/4. The area gets filled with heavy glass. That easily gets it to twice as much weight.

So, if you need the f/2.8, you need to be willing to deal with the mass. I do a lot on snow skis and boats - lots of outdoors where light is not a problem and weight is. The choice for me is simple.

As mentioned prior, all the 70-200's are ring zooms.

J

Ok Thanks guys. I wasn't sure on the zoom part. I do know my 100-400 is heavy and my bag is full.

Now I have to decide. I do know where there is a f/2.8 thats like 2 mos old I can pick up for 1200.00 and this is the IS version so thats why I wanted to leave the cost part of this out of the equation and get the better of the 2 as for IQ goes.