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

Congrats on your decision.

As far as the f4 IS is concerned, I will have to say that it was probably the sharpest zoom I owned. It was almost as sharp as the 135L I used to own also...so that's saying something.

Anyways, all the 70-200 versions are great lenses!

bbbig wrote in post #5155240
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.

Now that I have been patiently waiting for Canon 2008 USA rebates to kick in (April 1st???), now I am having second thoughts on the 2.8 IS over 4.0 IS, for two reasons.

1. While f/4.0 is slower, I can't seem to ignore the fact that it is optically superior than f/2.8. This lens is said to be the sharpest zoom Canon ever created, and I even see 135mm f/2 owners selling their lens in favor of using this lens. It must be really that sharp. Whereas f/2.8 IS, I don't think anyone makes similar claims. I am a type that pixel peep and never very happy unless I get very sharp images. Knowing that f/2.8 not as sharp, not sure if I could be "happy" lugging it around. (and weight or $$$ is not an issue for me) Also, I think I can live with shooting at ISO 200 on f/4, if the shutter speed really becomes an issue - I imagine I'd be using my 70-200 mostly outdoors. At least for another 3yrs.

2. f/4.0 IS is pretty darn new, having released in 2006. I think it goes to show the engineering & mfg refinements that took place since 2001. Will we see a lighter and better f/2.8 IS, w/4th gen IS in the near future? May be...

Your suggestions and opinions are welcome!

bbbig wrote in post #5229686
Now that I have been patiently waiting for Canon 2008 USA rebates to kick in (April 1st???), now I am having second thoughts on the 2.8 IS over 4.0 IS, for two reasons.

Sad to say, but I have the f/2.8 IS version, and I have owned all other versions of this lens, but I still can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt which is best for me. I am always going back and forth between selling it for the f/4 IS version, but then an instance pops up where I'm glad I have the f/2.8 version... etc.

Here's how I break them down...

f/4 non-IS: Love this lens, best bang for the buck. I will probably pick up another one for when I want to travel light.
f/4 IS: Nice portable all around lens.
f/2.8 non-IS: Nice lens, maybe the sharpest out of all the 70-200's I've owned.
f/2.8 IS: Does EVERYTHING that all the other versions do, its only downfall is the size and weight.

Good luck in your decision!

Tim

f/4ISL advantages:
sharper at f/4, cheaper, lighter, smaller
favorite lens of many amateur landscape photographers

f/2.8ISL advantages :
speed and bokeh of f/2.8, excellent close-up performance (no problems at MFD/200 mm),
favorite lens of many portrait and sport pro photographers