70-200mm f/2.8L IS -VS- f/4L IS -HELP-

basman007 wrote in post #5153280
for both sports and indoor photography without flash

f/2.8 wins over f/4 at that.
Pixel peeping is bad for the eyes...
The f/4 supposedly has a bit better IQ, but if your subject is blurred by motion, you won't see it

DegasGoneDigital wrote in post #5153129
You might have to upgrade Your camera body to one that works better with higher ISO settings.

There are a few good reasons for a different camera. This isn't one of them IMO.

---------------

Yes, I would agree that the f4 IS version is sharper than the f2.8 IS version, but honestly they are both good enough that sharpness was never a concern. I've owned both twice and the main reasons for choosing one over the other has always been:

1) extra stop
2) size and weight
3) price difference

No body can decide for you. Do you need the extra stop? I know I do but you may not and you'll only find out when you find yourself in a situation where you wish you had that extra stop for faster shutter speeds to stop the action, for example.

Do you mind the size and weight of the f2.8 IS? It's big. It's heavy. The f4 IS is wonderful in this regard. Personally I don't mind the weight or the size now that I know I need the extra stop. I tell you, if I had the money, I would probably own both!

Can you afford the extra $500-$700 that the f2.8 IS would cost you?

I went with the f/4 IS. I don't do any sports (yet alone indoor sports in a cave at night) and indoors without flash, f/2.8 can still be too slow. So I've added a 85mm f/1.8 and plan to (hopefully) pick up a 135mm f/2 one day to cover when I need speed.
I find the f/4 IS soooooooooo comfortable to walk around with (on my 40D), I'd imagine the f/2.8 would be alot more bulky (for my uses).

So if you're not opposed to primes, I'd go the f/4 IS, and add some high speed primes to cover when you need all the light you can get.

basman007 wrote in post #5153910
congrats, now the long wait begins

I'm still calculating in filter and battery grip, but will place an order later today

Thanks. 3-5 day delivery cane seen like a life time!

I also ordered the UV-1 haze filter and will add a 2x Extender in a couple of weeks.

If you have the $, the 2.8 IS anyday, unless weight is an issue.

nicksan wrote in post #5154072
Yes, I would agree that the f4 IS version is sharper than the f2.8 IS version, but honestly they are both good enough that sharpness was never a concern. I've owned both twice and the main reasons for choosing one over the other has always been:

1) extra stop
2) size and weight
3) price difference

No body can decide for you. Do you need the extra stop? I know I do but you may not and you'll only find out when you find yourself in a situation where you wish you had that extra stop for faster shutter speeds to stop the action, for example.

Do you mind the size and weight of the f2.8 IS? It's big. It's heavy. The f4 IS is wonderful in this regard. Personally I don't mind the weight or the size now that I know I need the extra stop. I tell you, if I had the money, I would probably own both!

Can you afford the extra $500-$700 that the f2.8 IS would cost you?

Thank you. IQ is so close as to be a non-factor, especially when there are so many other significant differences. If image quality is THE ultimate absolute top and only priority and you truly have a legitimate need to be 'sorting the fecal matter of a fly from the pepper' so to speak, you should be looking into a prime instead.

Canon offers four versions for good reason. Each can make perfect sense in a given situation.

I agree with the above post; if sharpness is the priority of versatility, you'd be going with a prime instead.

Personally, I would go for 2.8 over 4, because (having carried 24-70L regularly), I can't imagine I would have "issues" with its weight.

As far as the price difference is concerned, you should ask yourself two questions. 1) Realistically, how long will you be keeping this lens? 10yrs? Lifetime? and 2) Given that "lifespan" of the lens, when the $ difference is spread over the years, will it make that much of difference to your pocket? Also to consider is the resale value. So, $700 difference may not have a $700 difference after all.

Get the best lens your can afford, unless you see ABSOLUTELY no use for 2.8. I think 2.8 just gives more _options_, and IMO if you can carry the weight, it's worthwhile. I am going to get one too, but just waiting for USA rebate coming in April/May.

---------------

---------------

Making this same choice as well in trying to decide on my 2nd L. My 'need' for f/2.8 isn't as great, so the weight is going to be the deciding factor at my end methinks.

Thanks all for your comments.

basman007 wrote in post #5152923
I've read on multiple sites that the 2.8 has some focussing problems at the low f-values. According to alot of people the f/4 is really sharp over the entire focal length, while the 2.8 isn't as sharp, mainly at low f-values and at 200 mm.
When I buy something I do want to pick the best. And seeing as the 2.8 is alot more expensive than the 4 it really has to be worth it.

The f/2.8 does not have any focusing problems. Many people say that the f/2.8 is faster than the f/4 at focusing, if anything. A few camera bodies have f/2.8 precision sensors that only work with a lens that is f/2.8 or faster. If by focusing problems you mean sharpness problems, this is slightly true. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS is sharp at f/2.8 throughout most of the range, except at 200mm. But even then, at 200mm f/2.8, it is not a huge problem. Check these shots out:
All shot on a tripod, with a flash. Manual mode, 1/250 shutter, manual focusing via live view, ISO200. These are 100% crops of the center. White balance and brightness adjusted in DPP, rotated and cropped in CS3

70-200 f/2.8L IS at 200mm, f/2.8

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Oops, you already decided. Congrats on your decision . The rebates really helped mine, since I saved about $225. Having the difference between the two IS versions go from about $650 to about $400 really helps .

Here's what you can expect soon:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

---------------

I did a lot of research and it is true that the f/4.0L is sharper than the f/2.8L when both lenses are wide open (f/2.8@f2.8 vs. f/4.0@f4). But, the f/2.8@f4 is very nearly identical to the f/4.0@f4.