70-200L f/2.8 vs 70-200L f/4: The battle @ f/4

ConDigital wrote in post #9357233
Can we see the battle at f/2.8 ...............

linh811 wrote in post #9356687
why are we battling at f4? lets battle at f2.8... ooops, game over LOL

Here you go ..

I chosen to get back to f4 after having owned the 2.8. Lighter, more useable wide open, sharper. The perfect Lens.

blackhawk wrote in post #9366455
This argument has always seemed pointless to me as the lens aren't the same aperture value.
Some carry Mag lights, some carry Streamlights...
I think it's a weight thing:p
Maybe Canon should rename the new f/2.8 version as "The Enforcer".

Either way it's interesting how many have gone back to the Beast after using the lite version. What will happen now that the updated version II is available?
Three choices...

No question that the photo in the middle is way sharper than the other two.

That was taken with the unobtanium L.

me

Man I don't know how I can live without f2.8. Life would be a lot worse.

Ha ha funny

IMO F2.8 is really slow in low light conditions already. For this I love 135L. So live with f4 is quite easy

SiaoP wrote in post #9688686
Man I don't know how I can live without f2.8. Life would be a lot worse.

Found a used 2.8 IS for $1300 so that is why I went with the 2.8.

I have until recently owned a 200mm f2.8 II L prime, a 70-200 f2.8 IS L, a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG and now currently own a 70-200 f2.8 IS II L and a 70-200 f4 IS L.
From my copies, the prime was the sharpest and best IQ. It had less vignetting, a more natural Bokeh and out of focus rendering. It has slightly less contrast, which keeps the colours very natural and fresh looking. It had no percievable IQ drop with a canon 1.4x TC on my 5DII's. It's also a true 200mm, where as the zooms are a little shorter and generally get shorter as the focus is racked in.
My 70-200 f4 IS L is the next best in IQ terms. It's a little shorter than 200mm (190?) and it's really sharp wide open, across the focal range and focus range. It's small and light, which is perfect for travelling. It takes a 1.4x tc really well. It's AF is faster than the prime, it's not much heavier. It's weather sealed and has that great 4 stop IS unit.
My 70-200 f2.8 II L is the best f2.8 variant that I've owned. It's AF is the fastest that i've ever tried and again that great 4 stop IS is fitted. It shares the same 1.2 m MFD as the f4 variant but it's a lot heavier and bulkier. At 200mm, wide open, it's a tad less sharp but still very usable. It works great with a 1.4x tc on my 5DII and 7D. I have tried my 2x TC and it's ok but really needs to be stopped down by at least 2/3's of a stop. Then it starts to sharpen up very well. But my 400mm f5.6 L focusses faster and track better....plus it's a lot sharper @f5.6, but that's a different thread.
My most used 200mm lens is the f4 zoom

Gareth, thanks for the great info !
There are certainly copy variations with any lens model (and especially the 70-200/2.8 IS L), so individual tests may slightly favor one lens or another.
I didn't compare the lenses with the 2x TC, but I was certainly not happy with the 2.8 wide open (effective f/5.6) and this was one of the reasons I finally replaced it with the mk II.
About the 200 f2/8 prime, I've never tested it but I'm sure it is great; the only showstopper with the prime for me is the lack of IS since I almost always shoot handheld.

CheshireCat wrote in post #11480815
Gareth, thanks for the great info !
There are certainly copy variations with any lens model (and especially the 70-200/2.8 IS L), so individual tests may slightly favor one lens or another.
I didn't compare the lenses with the 2x TC, but I was certainly not happy with the 2.8 wide open (effective f/5.6) and this was one of the reasons I finally replaced it with the mk II.
About the 200 f2/8 prime, I've never tested it but I'm sure it is great; the only showstopper with the prime for me is the lack of IS since I almost always shoot handheld.

I really really want the 70-200 II, but man the weight bothers me. I've shot around at the zoo before, and even carrying the 5d2 w/ battery grip and 70-200 f4 IS was a chore. now it wasn't that bad when i had it in my hand, which was what I ended up doing, but when it was around the neck it was pretty annoying. I've also had the same setup with the additional of a 430EXII before, and that is probably almost the same weight as the 70-200 2.8. I can't imagine carrying that around all day. it would not be comfortable. I really like it with my 50 f/1.8 II and no grip though. that's a great combo

ilumo wrote in post #11565029
I really really want the 70-200 II, but man the weight bothers me. I've shot around at the zoo before, and even carrying the 5d2 w/ battery grip and 70-200 f4 IS was a chore. now it wasn't that bad when i had it in my hand, which was what I ended up doing, but when it was around the neck it was pretty annoying. I've also had the same setup with the additional of a 430EXII before, and that is probably almost the same weight as the 70-200 2.8. I can't imagine carrying that around all day. it would not be comfortable. I really like it with my 50 f/1.8 II and no grip though. that's a great combo

The f2.8 at about 1.5 Kg (53 oz) is twice the weight of the f4 and a lot bulkier.
Do you really really need the extra stop ?
If you don't (the 5D2 is great at high ISO), I agree with you that the f4 and an extra fast&small prime is a great combo.

A lens is just a tool to get great shots, and to do that you must be perfectly comfortable with your setup.
The best lens in the world becomes the worst if it stays at home