Canon 70-200mm which lens?

I'm in the market for a new lens two that I'm interested in are the Canon 70-200mm L IS F 4.0 and the Canon 70-200mm L IS F 2.8.
I would be interested in your opinions and experiences of these lenses.

My intended use would be a general walkabout lens possibly using tubes and a converter occasionally.

regards brian.

ummm....ok.....well...​the obvious choice between those two would be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, unless weight/size is an objection. Also, some will say it may be too long for a general walkabout. 70 isn't exactly wide. Look at the 24-70 2.8L or the 24-105 f/4L IS?

I've got the Canon 70-200 f/4L, stunning lensm but I am disappointed i didnt get a wide angle lens instead! now saving up for one fo the following instead now 16-35mm 17-40mm or the 17-55mm

Since you want a walk around lens get the f4. The 2.8 would get very heavy after a long day out taking pictures.

Amen to Bendel!

Bendel wrote in post #5466548
Since you want a walk around lens get the f4. The 2.8 would get very heavy after a long day out taking pictures.

The 70-200mm f/4L (series) lens is far lighter at 1.7 pounds than the 70-200mm f/2.8 (series) which, at 3.2 pounds, is almost twice the weight of the f/4L (series).

I have used the f/2.8L and will agree that it is an awesome lens. However, the extra weight is too much for me to enjoyably carry around.

I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (I replaced my non-IS model) and cannot say enough good things about this fantastic lens. The IS allows me (and I am getting old and don't hold a camera as well as I used to) to shoot using 200mm at 1/60 second with full expectation that every shot will be sharp and at 1/30 second with a very respectable percentage of sharp images.

The f/4L IS lens is also $600 less expensive (B&H prices of today) than the f/2.8 IS model.

I use a combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on two bodies (I have a 30D and a 350D) for my day-to-day shooting duo. I have the short lens on a strap around my neck and the longer lens in a holster case at my side on another body. I have found this to be a very versatile combination which will cover most general photo opportunities.

You already have both the 30D and 350D but, what you need is a good mid-range zoom (unless you are satisfied with the results from the kit lens which I am not). The $600 savings between the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS lenses would go a long way to offset the costs of a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens or would more than cover the very good 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron. Either of these great mid-range zooms would be an excellent choice as a partner for the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens.

However, whichever 70-200mm (series) lens that you opt for, I seriously suggest that you choose an IS model. I use the f/4L IS 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS version. The extra stop of the f/2.8L non-IS version would not (IMO) make up for the lack of IS.

The equivalent of 1/60 second at f/4 is 1/120 second at f/2.8. I simply cannot hand hold a 200mm lens (especially one as heavy as the f/2.8L) at 1/120 second with expectation that all my shots will be sharp and I could not get even a few sharp images using 1/60 second (equivalent of 1/30 second at f/4) at f/2.8.

Having owned both, my f/4 was tack sharp, and light. My f/2.8 is headed to the shop tomorrow for a 10 day stay at the calibration ward of Canon memorial hospital.

I'm looking to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm actually selling my 70-200 f/4 IS. Brand new and as much as I love it, I shoot indoors a lot and would find the 2.8 with weight a worthy investment.

Thanks for the replies everyone, i will mainly use the lens outdoors. I will be getting a 40D to use with it, and passing my 350D onto a friend with a lens or 2.

regards brian.

Well, then, there is your answer.

get the 70-200 2.8 IS.

i got the 2.8L IS and 1.4x TC. i can always use the reach and when i need more light i just take the tc off.