Who upgraded 70-200 F4IS to 2.8IS and not regretted?

Yeah, I have that itch. Time pressing, too. Have been researchin for days. Mostly people go from f4 to 2.8IS or f2.8 to 2.8IS.

Like the title says - Do you have regrets after upgrading, in terms of IQ?

Looking for faster AF for wildlife and birds, maybe portraits. Don't mind bigger and heavier.

Mike

I do not ever remember seeing anything about the AF speed increasing when moving to the 2.8 version. Of course, I could be wrong. I use the 70-200mm f4L IS for sports and do not have any problems with AF speed.

20D_Newbie wrote in post #4665439
I do not ever remember seeing anything about the AF speed increasing when moving to the 2.8 version. Of course, I could be wrong. I use the 70-200mm f4L IS for sports and do not have any problems with AF speed.

You are not helping
Thanks for cpmment though

gnrlmike wrote in post #4665340
Looking for faster AF for wildlife and birds, maybe portraits. Don't mind bigger and heavier

One issue is whether the 70-200 lenses are what you want for wildlife and birds. Is it enough reach?

20D_Newbie wrote in post #4665439
I do not ever remember seeing anything about the AF speed increasing when moving to the 2.8 version. Of course, I could be wrong. I use the 70-200mm f4L IS for sports and do not have any problems with AF speed.

In theory, the AF should be quicker with the f/2.8 lens because it allows more light to enter the camera and therefore should allow the camera to focus quicker. Will you notice it in every situation? No. It probably most noticeable under low light conditions.

That being said, I go through a lot of tossing and turning with these two lenses. About a year ago, I bought the f/4 IS version, had it for about a week, and for a few different reasons I decided to return it and just go for the f/2.8 IS version. I've been mostly happy with my decision, however the lighter weight and smaller size of the f/4 version is enticing at times. I really like my f/2.8 version, and I do use apertures larger than f/4 quite a bit, but I probably could avoid it more times than I think. I don't know, in a perfect world, I'd have both!

But really, unless you need the f/2.8, just stick with what you have.

Sorry. But Lightrules is right about wildlife and birding. My 70-200mm is not really enough for backyard birds, even with the 1.4x TC. You may want to consider the 100-400mm or 400mm f5.6. The 400mm is supposed to have very fast AF speed and is considered one of the best lenses for birds in flight.

Forgot to mention - the new lens will accompnay my 100-400. It is just slow very many times.

I don't shoot birds or wildlife much but I've heard good things about Sigma 300/2.8 which is in the same price range. No IS though.

PS: It's not really in the same price range, my bad.

Before I start, this is not a logical arguement to switch. On the contary it is totally illogical.

1/ The 70-200 L f/2.8 IS is the top of their range of 70-200 lenses.
2/ It costs more than any of the other 70-200 lenses in the range.

Surely this means it has to be the best? LOL.

Sorry, that wasn't very helpful. I haven't used the 70-200 L f/4 IS and as such can't really advise. As you have already deduced most make the move I made f/4 to f/2.8 IS.

timnosenzo wrote in post #4665485
About a year ago, I bought the f/4 IS version, had it for about a week, and for a few different reasons I decided to return it and just go for the f/2.8 IS version. I've been mostly happy with my decision, ... I don't know, in a perfect world, I'd have both!

But really, unless you need the f/2.8, just stick with what you have.

First experience noted. Thank you.

20D_Newbie wrote in post #4665490
You may want to consider ... 400mm f5.6. The 400mm is supposed to have very fast AF speed and is considered one of the best lenses for birds in flight.

haven't thought about that one. I do have 100-400 that I use with 1.4 TC at times and very often there is not enough light, so even IS doesn't help much - birds move a lot.

Without IS 400 5.6 would suck... I think.

kato1 wrote in post #4665521
Before I start, this is not a logical arguement to switch. On the contary it is totally illogical.

1/ The 70-200 L f/2.8 IS is the top of their range of 70-200 lenses.
2/ It costs more than any of the other 70-200 lenses in the range.

Surely this means it has to be the best? LOL.

Sorry, that wasn't very helpful. I haven't used the 70-200 L f/4 IS and as such can't really advise. As you have already deduced most make the move I made f/4 to f/2.8 IS.

I've used various copies of both the f2.8 IS and f4 IS. Consistently, I have found the f4 IS to be quite a bit better than the f2.8 IS for closer subjects. OTOH, for subject further out (roughly beyond 10 feet to infinity), the f2.8 IS is slightly better than the f4 IS. Take that FWIW.

Both lenses are top-drawer, lovely, crackers. I ended up with the f2.8 IS because at day's end, for my rationale, f2.8 IS trumps f4 IS. 1 stop, 2x the amount of light. Now this isn't to say that the f4 IS doesn't have its own perks over the f2.8 IS (lighter, smaller, better IS unit), but because I did not want to own both, I was forced to choose the f2.8.

It comes down to how much you value f2.8 (since you already said weight isn't an issue). That's it.

gnrlmike wrote in post #4665533
First experience noted. Thank you.

Looking back at your original post, I'm not sure I answered it very well. Here's another try.

No regrets in terms of IQ. I had limited experience with the f/4 version, but I've had all of the version of this lens, IS and non-IS and they are all very excellent lenses. I chose the f/2.8 ultimately because the extra stop is there when needed, slightly narrower DOF (I use this lens as a portrait lens probably most often, and as a walk-around--not much for wildlife because its too short to really be a serious wildlife lens, although that doesn't stop me from trying). I also like that on the f/2.8 version because I can easily get away with mounting a 1.4x TC on it and I still have an f/4 lens that gives decent IQ.

LightRules wrote in post #4665556
OTOH, for subject further out (roughly beyond 10 feet to infinity), the f2.8 IS is slightly better than the f4 IS. Take that FWIW.

It comes down to how much you value f2.8 (since you already said weight isn't an issue). That's it.

I haven't had 70-200 2.8, so I don't know If I value it in this lens or not. Comparing 2.8 to 4 in 24-70 and 24-105, I'd say I don't, but those are a lot more different lenses than these. I had to get both to find out.

This is what I probably would do - get 2.8 IS and enjoy both of them for 2 weeks of BH courtesy.

I know this may not be much help to you but the f/4IS is 984.00 and the f/2.8IS 1469.00 (B+H code price) so I guess for the extra stop will cost you a bit.

I have no complaints about the 2.8IS. I have it on my 40d and with the grip attached it balances very nicely.

Another small but important thing to me was filter size. Dont know if you invest in filters or believe in them? But, the 2.8IS is 77mm and the 4IS is 67mm? So I can use the circ pol I have for both lenses, this is a small thing to some but for me It was important.

This may or may not help you? just a thought...