70-200mm f4 or f2.8?

hey guys, i currently have the canon 70-200mm f4 IS, which is an awesome lens, but have started to want to play about more with d.o.f. and was considering moving the the new f2.8 MKII


What do you guys think...

Canon 70-200mm L f4 IS

or

Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 IS MKII

any thoughts guys?

if you want the extra stop for DoF, then it's pretty straight forward. The MkII is a REALLY nice lens; but it's expensive. Depending on your budget, you might hold on to the f/4 and purchase a large aperture prime for messing with DoF stuff. At least until you find that you really want/need the extra stop through the entire 70-200 range.

If you just simply want the MkII and have the budget for it, though, you won't be disappointed

one of the other reasons i went with the 70-200 f4 is was due to the weight. not sure if that is a problem for you.

1.What do you shoot?

Based on what you shoot. Do you need the extra stop of light for stopping motion or using that focal length in low light conditions? If yes, do you really have a choice? If no, why spend the money?

From reports I've seen the f/2.8 IS II is marginally sharper than the f/4 IS, and obviously has the advantage in maximum aperture. Assuming money is no object, there's no obvious downside to switching the f/4 IS for the f/2.8 IS II.

I got a 2.8 MKII as I primarily planned on using it for sports, so one stop and the ability to add a TC was important.

Obviously comes at the expense of size, weight and budget

Not sure for one stop improvement at 200mm for just DOF is really worth it though.

Of course 2.8 is better is you have $$$

According to this comparison the difference in sharpness is negligable. I am also considering these lenses and to me the weight factor is an important one. I think I will go for the f/4.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Seems like this debate always comes down to size/weight/cost comparisons. I do like the samples of the f/4 IS version; they seem to be tack sharp all the way to the edges! Of course it depends on your budget, your needs, and what you are primarily shooting.

The f2.8 II is heavier and costs a bunch of money but gives you f2.8... your choice if it is worth it.

I like the f/2.8 for more than shallow DOF It does much better in low light than f/4.
I have shot a few weddings in Churches that do not allow flashes and the f/2.8 was a life savor to keep the shutter speeds high.

Indoor sports shooter so had to be the 2.8 for me. Size and weight never bothered me but the price hurt lol

Time to burn some money
2.8 IS II all way