70-200mm F/2.8 IS... Help it Stay or Help it Go...

Hi all,

I have a 70-200 F/2.8 IS - it is a fantastic performer - versatile, great IS unit, I'm genuinely pleased with all aspects of its performance. I'm not here to debate the merits of one lens over another, however I'm struggling to decide whether to keep it or not and could use some feedback for the sake of my sanity.

I am using the 70-200 on both FF and crop bodies. Unfortunately due to the size/weight of the F/2.8 IS it stays at home much of the time. I bring the 70-200 when I know a job will need the fast aperture and/or IS, or when a shoot will demand the flexibility of the zoom and something longer than 100mm. I do not bring the 70-200 when doing casual shooting or personal project work as it is too cumbersome. Outside of wedding work the 70-200 is mostly shot at F/3.5 or smaller - so I carry the weight/size/cost premiums for a small percentage of time when I need the F/2.8 aperture.

Since there is nothing worse than a lens that stays in the bag or at home I am considering making a change to the 70-200 F/4 IS (smaller, IS is a must) which can be carried with much more frequently + 135mm F/2 for when I need the faster aperture.

Does this make sense? Can anyone see any shortcomings or reasons not to do this? My only concern is with wedding/event shooting - I know there are a number of folks working with the 135L or 200L for this kind of coverage. I'm wondering if a fast standard zoom and something like the 135 can handle this sort of work.

Thanks for the input all!

I am presently doing this very thing! I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 4IS. I have just acquired the 200 2.8II and now the 135 2, and am selling my 70-200 2.8IS! As much as I LOVE the 2.8 IS....the 70-200 f4is also sharp(er), smaller, and I will cover my ligt and DOF with primes!I also already have the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4, so light is less an issue!

I can't say I am able to help with YOUR dilemma but you've helped with mine. I have been wracking my brain over which 70/200 to get, 2.8 vs 4 and your post pretty much convinced me that getting the f/4 IS and the 135 and/or 200 and a couple TC's is the way to go.

Good luck with your decision and thanks a million for helping with mine!

If it stays at home then any argument for replacing it makes sense.

I say work out more and start shooting with your 70-200

I had the 70-200 2.8

I sold it for the 70-200

my life has been so, so much easier ever since. fact of the matter is if the difference between 2.8 and 4 is going to make or break the shoot you shouldn't be doing that shoot anyway. it's only one stop. If we are talking about going from f4 to 1.8 or something, 2.8 won't cut it anyway.

Stella - glad I could help. I think I'm around 70% sure I'm going to make this move, but need to feel it out a bit more.

Jim - looks like we are on the same train of thought!

Bohdank - I certainly agree - for example it wasn't much good to me hiking through the highlands this weekend, the convenience and reach were not worth the extra weight penalty. The only time this one leaves the house is when I a)know I need the reach, or b)am shooting a wedding

J_Tullar - it's not an issue of working out, but thanks. The weight and size is managable when shooting, however it is cumbersome when carrying it around in a camera bag all day. I more often than not leave it home because of the space it takes up in the bag, and the extra weight it packs on when it may not even be used.

Mikekelley - Thanks for the input though I disagree, there are times when going to F/2.8 from F/4.0 is a make or break difference, it is twice the shutter speed.

Anybody else make the transition from F/2.8 to F/4.0 IS? Any regrets?

I made the same switch myself and have been happy that I did. I definitely use the 135L more than the 70-200, but I'm much less reluctant to bring the 70-200 f/4 IS than I was the f/2.8 IS which sat home most of the time.

Oh, and if IQ is a concern for you, the 70-200 f/4 IS is better @ f/4 than the f/2.8 IS is @ f/4. The difference is marginal, but better is better.

@ 70mm f/4

@ 200mm f/4

Thanks for the input Tim, I can see myself using the 135L more than the 70-200, however having the flexibility of the zoom and the reach is a must have in the bag as well. I've had the F/4 non-IS and the F/2.8 IS and the IQ was great on both, so I have no reservations about the IQ of the 70-200 F/4 IS, that's not a consideration in the decision.

If you're shooting weddings, or any indoor event, I wouldn't do it. The f/2.8 is barely fast enough indoors, and 1 stop matters for DOF. I haven't used the f/4 model, but when I need my 70-200 I usually need/want the f/2.8.

Another thought. Would the f/4 be small enough you'd carry it on a hike? Its only an inch shorter, so doesn't take up much less space. The 1.5 lbs would matter on a hike, but still, is it small enough you'd actually cary it. Or, would it get left home too? Perhaps you should get one of the 70-300's for hikes and what not.

JC4 wrote in post #8611131
If you're shooting weddings, or any indoor event, I wouldn't do it. The f/2.8 is barely fast enough indoors, and 1 stop matters for DOF. I haven't used the f/4 model, but when I need my 70-200 I usually need/want the f/2.8.

Another thought. Would the f/4 be small enough you'd carry it on a hike? Its only an inch shorter, so doesn't take up much less space. The 1.5 lbs would matter on a hike, but still, is it small enough you'd actually cary it. Or, would it get left home too? If size/weight is keeping your 70-200 home now, will the difference matter? Perhaps you should get one of the 70-300's for hikes and what not.

I wouldn't intend to use the F/4 70-200 for wedding work, that's far too slow. As you have said, F/2.8 is marginal. My intention would be to use the 135 F/2 for reach during weddings.

I've owned the F/4 non-IS in the past and even though it is only a bit shorter, you are reducing the size around and the weight - it fits in camera bags better and is much lighter for carrying around all day.

My other thought it to keep the 70-200 F/2.8 IS specifically for wedding work and pick up something lighter for everyday shooting (i.e. 70-200 non-IS or just 135L).

I would make the switch. You say for your everyday shooting you rarely go wider than 3.5. 1/3 of a stop isn't all that much, you could always bump the ISO to make up for the difference if its an action shot. Otherwise the 4 stop IS of the 70-200 f/4 will take care of it.

Your going to be getting a sharper (this is often a heavily debated topic) zoom lens and if you do get the 135 f/2 you'll have a faster sharper lens compared to your current zoom for low light and wedding work.

For me the decision was easy, f/4 IS based on my shooting style and comfort traveling with the lens. I also had it in the back of my mind that someday I would get the 135 if need be, but that situation hasn't come up yet, my current line up serves me quite fine.

AirRick2 - thanks for the input. I would need the speed of the faster lens like the 135L for weddings and lowlight, but the F/4 IS would suffice for most of my other shooting.

If any wedding photogs are reading I'd love their input on working with a standard fast zoom on one body, but with a 135L or 200L on the 2nd body for wedding coverage. Sometimes I'm convinced that the 70-200 F/2.8 IS is the way to go, othertimes I think I'm relying too much on it as a crutch and that I can make a prime work.