Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L IS vs F/2.8L IS

Take a look at these side by side test shots of the two lenses (simply mouse-over the sample image to flip back and forth between the lenses)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS
vs
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS

@ 200mm f/4
@ (2xTC) 400mm f/8
and never mind at Wide Open
@ 200mm f/4 vs f/2.8


How can the more expensive 2.8 lens have lower image quality? Is it possible that the-digital-picture.com 's pictures are off?

Please, some one shed some light on these test samples.

I just read this in the review of the 2.8 lens

I guess that sort of explains a little bit, but then at the end he says

by "very close" is he implying that the f2.8 will not be able to achieve the great image quality of the f4?

blah blah blah...but the f4 cannot do 2.8 sooo lower light its not very useful
you get hairy eyes if you pixel peep nonstop

true I think I needed that slap in the face.

In theory, the f/4 IS might be sharper, but that should NOT be a deciding factor in which lens to get. Do you need f/2.8? Do you prefer a lighter walkaround solution? Do you generally use flash anyway? These are questions that should lead you to which lens to buy.

SLAP!

rafynet wrote in post #6150525
true I think I needed that slap in the face.

I went with the 70-200mm f/4 IS and I'm happy. When I need more speed, I have my 85mm f/1.8, which is more than a stop faster than the f/2.8 IS AND alot lighter

I went with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS because I wanted the best lens too extend to 400mm but still have the 70-200 range for closer shots in low light situations.

It's reasonable to expect the f/4 version to be sharper, as it's easier to design and manufacture a lens with a smaller opening.
If your image can take the shallow DOF, then 2.8 allows for faster movement stopping shutter speeds, of course.

If you mainly aim at taking photos in low light, of non-moveable targets, then they are about equal, as the newer and more advanced IS in the f/4 version equates the larger opening in the f/2.8.
If you take images of moving objects at dusk or dawn, then you should realize that the brightness level at these times of the day changes pretty fast, so it's actually not so many more minutes of photo time you buy by investing that much more in an f/2.8 lens.

Then f/2.8 allows high-precision autofocus on many bodies and keeps autofocus with 2X extenders.

Cost and weigth are easy to compare for anyone.

i'm beginning to think the only complete solution is to have both. F4 for a light carry around outdoor zoom, and the 2.8 for lower light or for shallower dof.

apersson850 wrote in post #6150920
It's reasonable to expect the f/4 version to be sharper, as it's easier to design and manufacture a lens with a smaller opening.
If your image can take the shallow DOF, then 2.8 allows for faster movement stopping shutter speeds, of course.

If you mainly aim at taking photos in low light, of non-moveable targets, then they are about equal, as the newer and more advanced IS in the f/4 version equates the larger opening in the f/2.8.
If you take images of moving objects at dusk or dawn, then you should realize that the brightness level at these times of the day changes pretty fast, so it's actually not so many more minutes of photo time you buy by investing that much more in an f/2.8 lens.

Then f/2.8 allows high-precision autofocus on many bodies and keeps autofocus with 2X extenders.

Cost and weigth are easy to compare for anyone.

Great comment. Thanks.

I was concerned that at the same aperture of f/4 images from the f/4L lens are sharper in those tests then the f/2.8L.

The f4 IS is the sharper lens, but sharpness should be a non-issue as both lenses are sharp enough.

-Can you afford the f2.8 IS?
-Do you need the extra stop of light or extra stop of IS?
-Does size matter to you?

I had the f4 IS and it was indeed a sharp lens. Very nice and portable. But I needed the extra stop of light more often than not, I could afford it, and didn't mind the size increase. So I traded it in for the f2.8 IS.

Here is yet another glowing review of the f/4 version from photozone.

http://www.photozone.d​e …-l-is-test-report--review

This site tends to provide lots of objective data with their reviews. They obviously like the f/4 IS version!

Elton Balch wrote in post #6151585
Here is yet another glowing review of the f/4 version from photozone.

http://www.photozone.d​e …-l-is-test-report--review

This site tends to provide lots of objective data with their reviews. They obviously like the f/4 IS version!

... and in spite of the price, he still rated it a 15 out of a possible 15 stars!

egordon99 wrote in post #6150534
SLAP!


I went with the 70-200mm f/4 IS and I'm happy. When I need more speed, I have my 85mm f/1.8, which is more than a stop faster than the f/2.8 IS AND alot lighter

You may have just convinced me to trade my 70-300/DO for a 70-200/4.0 IS. I have enough fast primes to bury f/2.8

Oak - I think that is a wise decision. I can see the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS being great in a fast paced setting (wedding) where the zoom helps you out, but I'd much rather have the 70-200mm f/4 IS paired with a 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.0 (I've been trying to sell my spare body parts for the 135 L, but no one wants my kidney)...

I'm a big proponent of "f/2.8 is STILL too slow to shoot indoors in low light withou a flash" and the f/4 IS paired with a 580EXII works pretty well for me, and then the FAST primes come out when the flash has to be shut off.