70-200f4L IS vs 70-200f2.8L

So it's tax refund time and it's probably going to one of these 2 lens. I had the f4 version long ago and sold it to fund a different perchase(it was amazing though) I just got a 7D, which lens is better. Is the IS more useful than the 2.8?
Most of the threads I've come across compare the f4IS vs the 2.8IS

Both is better... when you run out of light, the keepers stop.

I chose the f/4L IS

Both lenses are excellent and produce great imagery as do all that family of lenses. Don't be fooled into thinking about selecting any of the four 70-200mm "L" cousins due to image quality differences - there is just not enough difference between the four lenses to consider IQ as a selection parameter.

The primary differences between the f/4L IS lens and the f/2.8 IS are maximum aperture and size + weight.

The extra stop of the f/2.8L MAY allow you to stop subjects at a lower light level however, often the single f/stop is not quite enough to make a difference in hand held photography.

I can shoot my f/4L IS at 200mm lens at 1/60 second and expect to achieve near 100% sharp imagery and I can even shoot at 1/30 second and expect a high degree of sharp imagery.

I realize that IS will not stop moving imagery. However, I could not expect anyway near 100% sharp images if I were shooting with the f/2.8 non-IS lens at 1/120 second and would probably get no sharp imagery if I shot at 1/60 second. These two speeds would be the f/2.8 equivalent of 1/60 and 1/30 second at f/4. Sure, IS will not stop moving subjects but, if the entire image is not sharp - the subject will not be sharp. Additionally, using the IS Mode II, I can often get good panning shots of a moving subject at a speed at which I could get no sharpness without IS.

Yes, you can use a tripod or monopod with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and take advantage of the extra f/stop over the f/4L. However, when I am shooting sports, I will normally use the 70-200mm hand held and have a longer lens on a monopod. The 70-200mm is fine when the action draws closer but, does not have enough reach for mid-field shots.

The f/2.8 lens can provide a shorter depth of field which can isolate players but, using 200mm and f/4, the depth of field is reasonably short. A 200mm lens at f/4 focused at 20 feet will provide a depth of field of less than six inches with a 1.6x camera. Using a full frame camera, the DOF is about 8.5 inches. At 40 feet the 1.6x f/4 DOF is 21 inches. This is, IMO, plenty short to isolate individual players.

Some posters make much of the fact that the f/2.8 lens can be used with a 2x TC and still focus with 1.6x cameras. This is a non-factor to me since I don't think much of the results of using a 2x TC.

I shoot with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses which suits me just fine. But, if I were shooting professionally, equipment cost would be no problem and I would use a pair of 1.3x cameras with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens hand held and the 400mm f/2.8L on a tripod.

The reason that I did not select the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens is not the image quality nor the price - both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L non-IS are pretty equal in those areas.

I chose the f/4L IS because it is a far lighter and smaller sized lens than the f/2.8L. I use my f/4L IS lens as half of a two-camera/two-lens package along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for all of my travel and general purpose photography. I can carry the f/4L IS lens and a 40D camera at just about the same weight as the f/2.8L alone. I carry the f/4L IS everywhere and never leave it home due to its weight, This is very important to me as is the ability to hand hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than I could the f/2.8L.

The lighter weight and better hand holding capability makes my f/4L IS lens a far more versatile tool in the way I shoot with it.

At this point, it's probably worth waiting until April when the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is available. I think the update on this could be pretty good with sharpened optics and the newest 4 stop IS.

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …egoryid=150&mod​elid=19092

I can't remember where I saw it, but it's supposed to be available for sale in April.

I have the f/4 IS version and it is an amazingly sharp lens. Really top end great. It's probably at this point in time, Canon's best zoom lens. I would think that if the new f/2.8 mk II is as sharp and with the 4 stop IS if you don't mind the weight, it ought to be a pretty awesome lens. If weight is an issue, then the f/4 IS is the ticket. Having both is a great idea.

J.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #9414010
It's probably at this point in time, Canon's best zoom lens. I would think that if the new f/2.8 mk II is as sharp and with the 4 stop IS if you don't mind the weight, it ought to be a pretty awesome lens. If weight is an issue, then the f/4 IS is the ticket. Having both is a great idea.

J.

I'll agree that it's a sharp zoom lens, but I'd wager the majority on here would disagree with the above bolded statement. If the 17-55/2.8 IS were made in an EF mount with the red ring (and build quality), my money would be in it as being the 'best zoom.'

I have no experience with the EFS 17-55 and I'm not sure how one compares it to a 70-200 (or why one would do that) and would doubt that it would best an L lens. But that aside, let me modify my statement to say probably the best tele zoom from Canon currently is the 70-200 f/4L IS. That is supported by various reviews and MTF data. My bet is the mkII f/2.8 evens that out completely.

J.

RPCrowe...that's a good post and you point out a lot things to think about. I always thought I needed the 2.8 version for shooting hockey & dog agility. What I learned was I ended up using primes more often when light was an issue and didn't use the 2.8 as much elsewhere due to the weight. Switching to the F4 made a lot of sense for me and I use it for sports and it's light enough to use elsewhere.

Use light weight primes for low light needs f/1-f/2.0, at any focal length from 24L f1.4 to 300L f/2.8
Use F/2.8-f/5.6 zooms and good light or stobes at any focal length from 24-70-2.8L or 100-400 f/4.5-5.6

Not every shot is at wide-open aperature.

One thing for sure is that you can't handhold the f/2.8L non-IS much below 1/320 while you can the f/4L IS easily down to 1/25 or slower.

If you buy the 2.8 with IS you won’t ever have to ask or answer this question again.
The 2.8 is a VERY heavy lens, even more heavy than the 100-400L! (and longer)
This weight needs IS unless you will always use a tripod.
Most people want a monopod for this 2.8 lens and in that case “IS” is not needed.

crowflyawa wrote in post #9414778
If you buy the 2.8 with IS you won’t ever have to ask or answer this question again.
The 2.8 is a VERY heavy lens, even more heavy than the 100-400L! (and longer)
This weight needs IS unless you will always use a tripod.
Most people want a monopod for this 2.8 lens and in that case “IS” is not needed.

Myself like most who shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS hand hold it, and on a 1D body, oh my. No it doesn't "kill" me using it, all day. Photojournalists love this lense.
What's more, most shots are wide open... at f/2.8, even in daylight shots.

Dropping the plastic barreled f/4 version may indeed kill it, this Beast is built tough, and will survive nasty falls and still work.

Anyone here ever shot Rodeos ? Just curious what would be best , the f/2.8 or the f/4 vrs ? We just had our SandHills Stock Rodeo this past weekend and won't be back til next January . But there is a Monster Truck show coming and just wondering what would be needed to get good shots ? I have the 70-200mm f/4L USM non IS . I did not take it to the rodeo fear that it wouldn't be light enough but not sure . I saw a guy walking around with what looked like a 500mm L but not sure of the f/ . So what do you think is best , the f/2.8 or f/4 for inside Rodeos in a coliseum ?

Celestron wrote in post #9415449
Anyone here ever shot Rodeos ? Just curious what would be best , the f/2.8 or the f/4 vrs ? We just had our SandHills Stock Rodeo this past weekend and won't be back til next January . But there is a Monster Truck show coming and just wondering what would be needed to get good shots ? I have the 70-200mm f/4L USM non IS . I did not take it to the rodeo fear that it wouldn't be light enough but not sure . I saw a guy walking around with what looked like a 500mm L but not sure of the f/ . So what do you think is best , the f/2.8 or f/4 for inside Rodeos in a coliseum ?

With either lense you will get keepers, to a point.
As the shadows fall though, and you need shutter speed, that one f/stop difference is huge. Almost double the light gathering capability, and remember the AF works faster and better with a f/2.8 lense too.

oops

blackhawk wrote in post #9415199
Myself like most who shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS hand hold it, and on a 1D body, oh my. No it doesn't "kill" me using it, all day. Photojournalists love this lenses.
What's more, most shots are wide open... at f/2.8, even in daylight shots.

Dropping the plastic barreled f/4 version may indeed kill it, this Beast is built tough, and will survive nasty falls and still work.

Some clarification if I may,

AF is not faster on 2.8 but it is more accurate in the sense that the sensors points that detect "contrast" to determine focus for "AF" are in a 3x hyper-sensitive mode when an F/2.8 or wider lens is on to the body.

The 70-200 2.8 would be used by most people all day, I would think, but even for short terms it's tiring to hold for certain and makes everything a lot less steady so “IS” is more important on these heavy lenses.

Using a 1D body with a heavy lens like these can help or hurt depending on the person hands size, its heavier body but it’s got better grip to hold onto. Using the same lens on a 7D or Rebel will be harder to hold without a grip imho. Regardless, holding up 5-8 LBS to your face in a steady concentrated way isn’t what most people can do all day without aches and pains.

Go on and test it! Drop onto the concrete a 4lbs lens with 20 glass elements inside or drop a 1lbs lens with 11 glass elements inside. Neither are going to be pretty. I've heard several of people drop their heavy L white lens and it break inside even though the outside was solid, even the 70-200 2.8 I have heard this. Don’t expect these heavy things to last a Fall, they are tough for normal wear and tear not made for bouncing.