choosing between EF 70-200/f4 L IS vs f2.8 L. need Help

I tried my friends 2.8 and ended up buying the f4 IS.. If you don't need the extra stop for fast action then the f4 is a very good choice IMO. The extra weight of the 2.8 was more than noticable for me after walking around for an hour with it.

And as has been said I am blown away by the IS on the 70-200 f4, so effective. Without IS I generally struggle to handhold 1/30 consistantly at 200mm, guess its an individual thing.

I do intend to buy a 85/1.8 or 100/2 one day though..

Dereksalem wrote in post #10136941
First of all, if your equipment list is accurate you really can't comment on the pros and cons if the 2 lenses since you have neither. Either one of these lenses would cost more than all of your equipment combined.

There's nothing to say the member you directed that at hasn't used/borrowed/previous​ly owned the lenses your talking about.

If we're talking about the perceived value of people's contributions; cheap shots about the monetary value of other people's equipment doesn't exactly shine a great light on what you have to say...

Well ... as it was said, the f/2.8 is much heavier and bigger, and the f/4 IS is much sharper and it's a great lens. Unless you really need the f/2.8 for like sports shots, go with the f/4 IS, if you feel that you need the f/2.8 however, try and consider the new version as the old one can not compete with the f/4 in terms of sharpness.

if you plan on using a TC 1.4 or something I would suggest the 2.8 IS, if you don't need the extra stop go get the f4 IS and save you money.

for example get f4 zooms and add some nice 1.2-1.8 primes for low light

germinal wrote in post #10137246
if you plan on using a TC 1.4 or something I would suggest the 2.8 IS, if you don't need the extra stop go get the f4 IS and save you money.

for example get f4 zooms and add some nice 1.2-1.8 primes for low light

This! And the f/4 still outperforms the f/2.8 in image quality, and to be honest I shoot allot of f/4 shots in outdoor sports with my f/2.8!

hi guys, I've placed order for the f/4L IS. it will arrive early next week. I'm sure I will like the glass. you're all nice people willing to give your hand to someone in doubt - I love this place.

BTW, anyone having experience with Kenko Pro1D protective filters? Hoya also has the Pro1D series. what's the difference? the Kenko Pro1D filter is about 1/3 of the price of a B+W. I'm thinking of giving it a try. or do you think I should start a new post in the accessories section?

without getting into filter use argument, just a few tests of what they do and which is best worst (they all degrade image to some degree). I really like marumi DHG Super ND and CPL myself.

UV - http://www.lenstip.com​/index.php?art=113

CPL - http://www.lenstip.com …rs_test_Introdu​ction.html

Kenko and Hoya Pro1 are the same BTW..

thanks for the links, Joe. I'll check it out.

I'd take the 70-200mm f4 IS over the 2.8 anyday (unless its absolutely imperative to have the 2.8). I would also take the f4 over the new and much hearlded 70-200mm 2.8 II (if 2.0 isn't a must). The new zoom costs double over the price of the f4 IS.

If you get an L lens, you can't try and save on filters. Bad quality filters can reduce image quality, and pictures taken with an L lens will look average. From what I found Hoya HD filters work great with Canon L's, they let a lot of light through and don't reduce the image quality. I have had good experience with Hoya Pro1 Digital as well, but they are hard to clean. Anyway, I am a Hoya filter guy, someone else may say others are better, I am just sharing what I found out.

bahnhof wrote in post #10137412
hi guys, I've placed order for the f/4L IS. it will arrive early next week. I'm sure I will like the glass. you're all nice people willing to give your hand to someone in doubt - I love this place.

You are going to LOVE this lens. Congrats on the purchase.

nightcat wrote in post #10137551
I'd take the 70-200mm f4 IS over the 2.8 anyday (unless its absolutely imperative to have the 2.8). I would also take the f4 over the new and much hearlded 70-200mm 2.8 II (if 2.0 isn't a must). The new zoom costs double over the price of the f4 IS.

just had a debate with my colleague, who originally proposed the f2.8 and told me I had made a mistake when he heard my decision. what you said is really soothing

peter.pan wrote in post #10137649
If you get an L lens, you can't try and save on filters. Bad quality filters can reduce image quality, and pictures taken with an L lens will look average. From what I found Hoya HD filters work great with Canon L's, they let a lot of light through and don't reduce the image quality. I have had good experience with Hoya Pro1 Digital as well, but they are hard to clean. Anyway, I am a Hoya filter guy, someone else may say others are better, I am just sharing what I found out.

I use a B+W 72mm MRC filter for my EFS 15-85, which has very good quality. the above mentioned colleague of mine uses Hoya for all of his lenses. I think I will try a Hoya for my coming 70-200. Thanks for the recommendation.

ceegee wrote in post #10137898
You are going to LOVE this lens. Congrats on the purchase.

I borrowed my colleague's f4 L non-IS a couple of times and it is amazing. Reassured by all the good things I've read at various review sites and what most of you speak of the f4 L IS, I have no doubt I will LOVE it. Thank you!

Worst case scenario, the 70-200's sell for almost as much as you can get them for new. You could always move to a 2.8 later if you wanted to. That was my reasoning at least. Still haven't felt the need though. I love my f/4. I'm sure you will too.

I am debating getting a 4 IS but I shoot mostly sports with the 2.8 I sold a month or so ago and went with a 200 2.8 which I just sold. I am or was planning to going back to the 70-200 2.8 non is because it can do one thing a 4 IS can do and that's shoot at 2.8. I live in the pacific NW and many of the LL baseball games I shoot is dark cloudy and many times raining and the 2.8 comes in very handy and I am not sure the 4 IS can do this.

This for posting this, I have been going back and forth between on the same question for quite awhile.


Btw, any chance someone can post some low light or night shots w/ the f/4 IS. Shots taken w/o tripod if possible.