70-200 f/4L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L?

Which would you choose for around the same price?
Will primarily be used handheld for nature/walk-around/candid portrait and also for automotive photography.

Thanks

In my opinion the 70-200 f/2.8 is a bad move. IS is a big deal at these focal lengths and the corners of the f/4 IS are better than the f/2.8 when they're at the same aperture. When the f/2.8 is wide open, it's a bit fuzzy. If you really need f/2.8, the only way to go is the mark ii with IS, with the rest of your lineup, you won't be happy with the IQ of the f/2.8.

Here's a comparison of both at f/4. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

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

Velorium wrote in post #11767601
In my opinion the 70-200 f/2.8 is a bad move. IS is a big deal at these focal lengths and the corners of the f/4 IS are better than the f/2.8 when they're at the same aperture. When the f/2.8 is wide open, it's a bit fuzzy. If you really need f/2.8, the only way to go is the mark ii with IS, with the rest of your lineup, you won't be happy with the IQ of the f/2.8.

Here's a comparison of both at f/4. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

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

You do not hav experience with it do you ? Oh yeah the ultimate internet experience ! Forget about that online tool. It contradits other similar tools and publications. For example your quoted 'soft' 70-200 looks completely different on the site you provided a link to and Canon official MTF chart.
By the way I have both Mk 1 nd 2 and can say that the difference if far less dramatic than the site suggests.

DerekZoolander wrote in post #11767584
Which would you choose for around the same price?
Will primarily be used handheld for nature/walk-around/candid portrait and also for automotive photography.

Thanks

If it is you who is planning to buy one of these, can you please share in what way(s) your 10-20 + 24-105 are not already serving the purposes you mention?

Refresh Image wrote in post #11767692
You do not hav experience with it do you ? Oh yeah the ultimate internet experience ! Forget about that online tool. It contradits other similar tools and publications. For example your quoted 'soft' 70-200 looks completely different on the site you provided a link to and Canon official MTF chart.
By the way I have both Mk 1 nd 2 and can say that the difference if far less dramatic than the site suggests.

Take it down a notch there, buddy.

The 2.8L is pretty heavy for general walk around lens. That is the main reason for getting the F4 IS instead of the 2.8 IS II.

nikmar08 wrote in post #11767707
If it is you who is planning to buy one of these, can you please share in what way(s) your 10-20 + 24-105 are not already serving the purposes you mention?

100mm isn't long enough and my 55-250 is usually too slow at 250mm

DerekZoolander wrote in post #11767584
Which would you choose for around the same price?
Will primarily be used handheld for nature/walk-around/candid portrait and also for automotive photography.

Thanks

In my opinion...
Neither, given what you already have (they're solutions to problems you don't have, in my view).

If you're shooting nature (I assume animals) the 250 is long enough for casual use, and you'll probably want to go longer if you're really really serious. You're set for walkaround and candid portraits, and you have UWA for auto.

If you're shooting motorsport, you're similarly set up for nature... long enough for casual use, and if you're serious you can try a long prime.

muskyhunter wrote in post #11769412
The 2.8L is pretty heavy for general walk around lens. That is the main reason for getting the F4 IS instead of the 2.8 IS II.

Take the 2.8 MKII any day it's a great lens but that is not the question. Around the same price of an f/4 means the non IS and for me I took the 2.8 non IS. Some say it's heavy big deal pump some iron the one thing the 4 IS can never do is shoot at 2.8 or even 3.2. I have owned them all and the 4 IS and non IS are great lenses but the love for a 2.8 is hard to beat

Another vote for the MKII, but between the two listed I loved the F4 IS. Very sharp and the IS was too much of a bonus to pass up.

Handheld walk around? The f4 has two bonuses for that.

1. Light
2. IS

Enough said I think

themadman wrote in post #11773099
Handheld walk around? The f4 has two bonuses for that.

1. Light
2. IS

Enough said I think

Not MKII

1. sharp at 2.8 and beyond
2. IS
3. built like a brick sh_t house
4. 2.8 and sharp
5. Weight what the heck is 3 pounds not an issue

I guess it depends on what you shoot but for me the 2.8 is the way to go. You have the option of adding a 1.4X telecon for more reach and it's pretty dang sharp. In the grand scheme of things its a great to decide between these two awesome lenses but at the end of the day only you can decide...good luck!

From those two choices, I'd take the f/4 IS. Once you start getting into the telephoto ranges, IS is REALLY nice to have. If you're really set on that focal length, it might be worth your time to live with the ones you have until you can afford the 2.8 IS (either flavor).

F/4 IS is rated at 4 stops, which far outweighs the one stop shutter difference you'll get out of the 2.8 non-IS, IMO. And if you're shoring this focal length, you're likely looking to "get the shot" rather than trying to be creative with your background enough for the 2.8 to matter critically, I'm guessing.

I voted wrong. Didn't notice the 2.8 w/o IS. Considering that, f/4 IS would be my choice.