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

Wait for the 70-200 f2.8II to come out, before buying. Copies of the first version will fall in price, and you should be able to find a used one for a good price.

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 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.

The F4 barrel is actually metal, like the 2.8s. I know, as I dropped mine on Saturday. A 5 foot fall onto concrete and then a short roll down a hill killed it's resale value, but the lens still works flawlessly.

sharky wrote in post #9415854
The F4 barrel is actually metal, like the 2.8s. I know, as I dropped mine on Saturday. A 5 foot fall onto concrete and then a short roll down a hill killed it's resale value, but the lens still works flawlessly.

i guess that will void the warranty too?

crowflyawa wrote in post #9415805
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.

Faster. Al I have to do to see this is slam on the 1.4x TC and turn my 70-200 f/2.8 into a f/4 lense!
Even on the MK-3, in low light it's AF lock-ons are are slower in one shot mode, on the 5D it's even more noticeable.

We're not talking about a lot of weight, what a pound? I pick up my 1D body over my lighter 5D any time I can because it's more capable, and gets more keepers.

1D's got nice grips but it is what it is. I use whatever I can find to brace off of, including the ground. People need to learn to shoot smarter not harder! It your afraid of a little pain, life's gonna be real hard. This is good pain if you manage yourself right.

Plenty have including on concrete, or while on the back of an elephant. I don't have to test this lense for ruggedness, it's well know for this quality. I've seen L glass take hard hits and keep it's element alignment and AF calibration... it's not a myth.
I Don't recommend banging any precision optical instrument around, but when it happens you really don't have a choice.

If you don’t think that extra 2-3 lbs matters then you can come camping with me and carry all the extra 1-2 lbs items no one else will carry. Lol

The diff of weight and size form the f/4 and f/2.8 is incredibly large, no matter what superiority f/2.8 has this point is not to be minimized. The forums are full of f/2.8 users who say they left it at home due to weight and used a 200 2.8 prime instead it's light and cheap and sharper. :\ You can buy a 200 2.8 prime and the 70-200f/4 for the price of the 200 2.8 and keep both in the same bag they are so small and together are weigh less than one 70-200 2.8 at 3.2lbs vs 700grams + 600 grams. The 200 2.8 prime has much faster AF than the 70-200 2.8.

I carried the heaviest zoom canon makes on a tiny rebel body for over a year as my only lens and body I got where I could use it one handed for a looong time. That don’t mean I Liked it or wanted it. I was so glad to sell that 28-300L. The 70-200 2.8 is the same weight and size and will make u feel pain if you carry it around more than a few minutes at a time. I use the 100-400L now and it’s almost harder to use even tho it’s slightly lighter and slightly smaller when compressed at 100mm. It really needs a monopod or tripod for all day use. The 70-200 2.8 is in the same class as the heaviest lenses canon makes. I used my 100-400L for 1 hour by the river today and have a arm and back ache this evening lol.

They SAID:
=============
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.

Regarding the weight issue, it's a different of 1.2lbs, which may or may not be a factor for you. I've carried around my Sigma 50-500mm all day without issues, and it's heavier than both of those lenses. It's a personal choice of course, but the extra 1.2lbs wouldn't bother me if it made my images that much better. It's not at all like the difference between a 400mm f/2.8 and f/5.6.

The extra weight helps stabilize your camera as well, as long as you're strong enough to hold it steady without shaking.

The size of the 2.8 is meant for someone more serious about photography than whatever else it is that they're doing. I've only brought mine out once..... it was too damn big and I never brought it out again. I also have to tote along a 29lbs 19 month old, diapers, bottles, and all the baby crap that comes with a kids that age

linh811 wrote in post #9416312
The size of the 2.8 is meant for someone more serious about photography than whatever else it is that they're doing. I've only brought mine out once..... it was too damn big and I never brought it out again. I also have to tote along a 29lbs 19 month old, diapers, bottles, and all the baby crap that comes with a kids that age

here's a good candidate for the f/4 version of the lens of the more compact 70-300

omg this topic again.
get 2.8 as you can shoot down at 4 as well.

just get what you need and no more.

Just ask yourself "How often will I shoot at f/2.8?" For every shot you take stopped down with this lens, you aren't justifying it's price or weight.

RPCrowe wrote in post #9413383
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.

+1 for this. I used to have a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, but found I was leaving it home more frequently than I was using it, due mainly to the weight (I have arthritis in my hand and wrist, and found it difficult keep the lens steady during prolonged use). Now that I have the f/4 IS, I take it with me virtually everywhere and use it constantly. It's quickly become my favourite lens for everything from portraits to outdoor sports.

kostka wrote in post #9416280
Regarding the weight issue, it's a different of 1.2lbs, which may or may not be a factor for you. I've carried around my Sigma 50-500mm all day without issues, and it's heavier than both of those lenses. It's a personal choice of course, but the extra 1.2lbs wouldn't bother me if it made my images that much better. It's not at all like the difference between a 400mm f/2.8 and f/5.6.

The extra weight helps stabilize your camera as well, as long as you're strong enough to hold it steady without shaking.

I couldn't agree more. The 70-200 f/2.8 is really not much larger (a bit heavier) then the 24-70L when carrying it, and on the cam it's easy to handle.

Because of it's length, diameter (I have small paws too) and zoom/focus ring offset, it's a very easy lense to hold. the easiest of all my L lens to spite it's also the biggest.
It tucks nicely under one's arm to carry, and I constantly use it to counterbalance while walking.
I don't use one hand to carry it, and change hands constantly. You can seamlessly pass it from from one hand to the other, or carry dead center when in crowds or hostile situations.
I never use a neck strap; tethers only.
It's small enough to fit into my Kata sling on a MK-3 with it's retracted! That's NOT big!!!

ceegee wrote in post #9416883
+1 for this. I used to have a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, but found I was leaving it home more frequently than I was using it, due mainly to the weight (I have arthritis in my hand and wrist, and found it difficult keep the lens steady during prolonged use). Now that I have the f/4 IS, I take it with me virtually everywhere and use it constantly. It's quickly become my favourite lens for everything from portraits to outdoor sports.

I can sympathize with you as I know what it's like to suffer from severe wrist tendinitis. Depending on it's stage you may still be able to get it to regress. Aggravating it doesn't help... and every little bit you can do to avoid this does help.

Keep your wrists straight always when lifting; never bend them while grasping, and try to avoid using fingers with the wrist bend.
"Palm" objects when ever possible; use the palm of the hand to support the cam barrel rather than completely wrapping your fingers around it when not needed.
Change handholds frequently, and give frequent rests before you start to tire. Use the muscles, not the joints to lift and bear weight.

Learn to palm the steering wheel when driving, and never wrap your thumb around the wheel (in an accident, this can cause severe injuries to the thumb). Use downward pressure from your triceps to maintain hold of the wheel when turning.
Avoid "death gripping" the wheel. Use a light grip and a 10/2 o'clock position when driving with both hands.
Driving out of position can greatly aggravate wrist/finger troubles.

Ice is your friend, ice the hell out of it!!! A drip into a bucket of ice&water for 3-10 minutes, a couple times a day. DO NOT allow to get so cold as to cause nerve damage... ha-ha.

You may also be hurting the wrists inadvertently while asleep; try sleeping with a wrist splint(s) on.
Heat at night can break a prolong inflammation cycle; wrap a heating pad around the hand/wrist lightly with an Ace bandage. Set on low and never restrict circulation, and make sure it isn't burning you. Sleep for as many hours like this as you can bear. If it feels better in the morning (or not worse); keep doing it, it's healing!
Continue for at least 2 weeks, the take a few nights off and reevaluate.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can cause a rebound effect after a few days making the inflammation worse, and causing the injury not to heal. Try using just ice and heat if possible. Wrapping the wrist or wearing full coverage elastic wrist/thumb bands during the day can also help a lot.

Use a stretching/exercise program, and always ice down immediately afterward. Always start warm. It hurts to break down scar tissue; learn to tell the difference between good and bad pain.

blackhawk wrote in post #9417337
... learn to tell the difference between good and bad pain.

And remember the 'safe' word

I don't find the 70-200 2.8 IS that heavy .. and I certainly don't ever leave it behind.

I'm beginning to wonder what all the nay-sayers with sore wrists are doing with their hands/arms to make them sore .. it ain't from carrying lenses about, that's for sure

Perfect_10 wrote in post #9417622
And remember the 'safe' word

I don't find the 70-200 2.8 IS that heavy .. and I certainly don't ever leave it behind.

I'm beginning to wonder what all the nay-sayers with sore wrists are doing with their hands/arms to make them sore .. it ain't from carrying lenses about, that's for sure

Some I think are gripping too hard while zooming, or when handling the cam. I don't "white knuckle" anything when shooting.
The 70-200 on the MK-3 is very comfortable for me to shoot with... yeah, what are they doing???