EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS vs. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS

[Mark Elberson]

I know similar threads have been posted before but I really feel I need that extra push from all of you. Although price is always a concern for me, I do not want to make my decision based on price alone.


I am leaning towards the f/2.8 but only because I fear that I will always regret not having that aperture if I get the f/4. Outside of that however, I feel that the f/4 has many advantages :

Lighter - 26.8 oz / 51.9 oz
Cheaper - $1,100 / $1,700
Arguably Sharper - "Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) at the same aperture."
4 Stop IS as opposed to 3 Stop IS



At this point I can't say that I "need" the low-light performance of the f/2.8 but when investing this much money I want to cover all of my bases.


I am currently saving up for this purchase and will not be buying either lens in the immediate future.


Current Equipment

Canon EOS 50D Digital SLR
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM



Future Equipment

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR



Having just reread my very lengthy post it appears that I need to be convinced that the f/2.8 is the right way to go :)


Oh yeah, either way I want IS so the non IS versions are not on the table.

[Jon Ruyle]

Weight of the f/2.8 is no problem for me. I use it with my 5D II and I love the thing. (Just giving you a single data point. Others might not like the weight).


From what I have seen, sharpness difference is negligable in real life.


The 1 extra stop for the f/4 means the two lenses are equally hand holdable. The advantage of f/4 is you get more dof in low light. f/2.8 on the other hand stops action. I think most people would prefer to stop the action, but it is a personal decision.


Price, of course, can be a factor. OTOH, I had the f/4 (non IS) and sold it to get the f/2.8.


I'm *very* pleased with my f/2.8 IS.


Having just reread my lengthy post, it appears I am trying to convince you that f/2.8 is the way to go :)

[CtrlAltDel]

I shoot high school/college football night games and basketball. The f/2.8 is required to get decent shots. Then during daytime games (football) I can add the 1.4 extender and still get great shots (the extender of course ruduces 1 f stop).


It just depends what you want to use it for. I wanted a general purpose lens that would fit a wide range of applications. But my primary love is sports photography. So it was no question.

[Colin]

The other thing is, considering the lenses you've already got, what does the f/4 version really get you? Seems a bit redundant with the current lineup.


*chanting*


2.8!


2.8!


2.8!

[Keith B]

My rule of thumb is; if you are teetering between the two go with the top dog.


If you buy the 4, in the back of your mind you will still want the 2.8. Every time that instance comes up where you need that extra stop or you want more bokeh, you will kick yourself. You will sell the 4 loose a couple hundred bucks and then it will be like paying 18-1900 bucks for the 2.8 when you get it.


I am speaking from experience.


I don't think the weight will be an issue if you are use to carrying the 100-400 around.

[Mark Elberson]

The other thing is, considering the lenses you've already got, what does the f/4 version really get you? Seems a bit redundant with the current lineup.


*chanting*


2.8!


2.8!


2.8!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Great point! I feel the same way since this lens will have 100% overlap with the focal lengths that I already have. They are all on the medium to slow side of the spectrum too. I guess I just needed some reassurance since I've read a lot of posts in favor of the f/4.

[Daniel Browning]

Do you need 1000 horsepower or 500 horsepower? Do you need 1000 watt lights or 500 watt lights? 1/1000 or 1/500? 1000 ISO or 500 ISO? A single stop is a big difference in depth of field and light gathering power. As a self-confessed aperture addict, it's contrary to my nature to ever recommend anything except the lens with widest aperture, so I say go with the 2.8.


However, I will add a side note: for all overlapping fields of view, the 5D2 with the 70-200 f/4 will have slightly more light gathering power (better low light/underexposure) and thinner DOF than the 50D with the 70-200 f/2.8. That means the faster f-number is even more important on the 50D than after you upgrade.

[Mark Elberson]

Do you need 1000 horsepower or 500 horsepower? Do you need 1000 watt lights or 500 watt lights? 1/1000 or 1/500? 1000 ISO or 500 ISO? A single stop is a big difference in depth of field and light gathering power. As a self-confessed aperture addict, it's contrary to my nature to ever recommend anything except the lens with widest aperture, so I say go with the 2.8.


However, I will add a side note: for all overlapping fields of view, the 5D2 with the 70-200 f/4 will have slightly more light gathering power (better low light/underexposure) and thinner DOF than the 50D with the 70-200 f/2.8. That means the faster f-number is even more important on the 50D than after you upgrade.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks Daniel. I always enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your perspective. It's looking like I am going to continue saving so that I can buy the f/2.8!

[piiooo]

I own both 4.0(2 years) and 2.8 (six months), and use them onmy 50D and XSI, andI have tosay that since I bought the 2.8Ibarely usethe 4.0. I still keep the 4.o in case I have to go light, but if I had one I would stick with the 2.8

[adam]

If you already have the 100-400, a 70-200 f/4 won't give you much that you don't already have...the 100-400 is only a little slower at shared focal lengths, has IS, and has a wider range.


Not to make your decision any more confusing, but if size is a factor, what about fast primes? Depending on what focal lengths you shoot, you might have fun with the 135L and/or 200 f/2.8L...neither one has an image stabilizer, so that might be a dealbreaker for you...but the image quality is probably better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and you can get both primes for about the same price as the zoom...just a thought (since I am currently very very addicted to the 135L I rented...)

[Tim]

I personally would go with the f/4, because I don't need the extra stop. I would then get the 200 f/2.8 with the saved money. The prime will be sharper at 200, and no IS shouldn't be a problem because you most likely wouldn't use the 70-200 @ f/2.8 unless you were going to stop action (unless portraits is your thing, but then getting the f/2.8 would be too easy a decision)

[richm]

For the past year I've been using my 24-105L, and know my next (soon) purchase will be one of the 70-200's.


I finally was able to rent an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS last week. I was very impressed with the image quality, and was expecting to completely fall in love with the lens. However, after reviewing the 400-500 shots, that vast majority of the keepers were f4 and up. They were outstanding, but it made me realize that for my use, I'm now leaning towards the f/4 IS (I borrowed a friend's 10-22 for a trip, and absolutely loved it, and can use the extra $ for the 10-22 that I crave).

[Dallasphotog]

The EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM was one of the first "expensive" pieces of glass I bought. It remains my favorite lens. I know at least three or four other full time professionals who carry it to every shoot, weather they plan on using it or not. It's just that useful.


I can't say enough about f/2.8 for low light, twighlight and night shooting.

[greggf]

I currently own the f4 IS, and absolutely love it. You can't go wrong with this lens...you really can't stop action, but like the previous poster said, most of his shots were at f4 or higher when shooting with the 2.8. I would only get the 2.8 if you really need the stopping power. And the bokeh on the f4 is very very nice, if you set your shot up right. why don't you rent both for a week(lensrental.com comes to mind), and see what they really do for you...then you can make your own informed decision. Give it a shot...G

[mark]

you can always stop down the f4.0 but you can never make the f4.0 into an f2.8

[teddan]

I got the 4L IS. the dealbreaker for me was the shady contrast with 2.8 full open (Although this can be fixed with curves in PP.)





A interesting point is also that what you can read on photozone.de: "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be
the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens
tested locally to date."





I'm gonna get primes for the faster apertures. gonna start with the 100 F2.

[Benjamin]

Interestingly when I had the 70-200L lens on my purchase list I went for the 70-200/2.8L IS. However, one week after I took it back to the shop and exchanged for the 70-200/4L IS. One week with my 70-200/2.8L IS I found that it was an absolutely superb lens in every possible way; the only problem I have encountered is that I cannot carry the lens all day. It is simply too heavy for me and my hands are not even big enough to handle it comfortably... So instead, I use the 70-200/4L IS (which is identically perfect at comparable apertures) for its versatility. If I need a fast aperture I will use my 85/1.8 and probably in the future I will add a 135/2L to my kit. That way I can either carry a single 70-200/4L IS for convenience or carry 85/1.8 + 135/2L for their better IQ and faster apertures.


Don't get me wrong though. I'm just such a guy who cannot stand the weight and size of the F2.8 version. If you feel ok with the weight/size of the lens, going for the F2.8 IS is by all means correct.

[Colin]

I do find the size of the 2.8 a detriment, but mostly because people start asking me questions about it [:)]

[Jon Ruyle]

I do find the size of the 2.8 a detriment, but mostly because people start asking me questions about it /emoticons/emotion-1.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I agree. The conspicuousness of it is a bit of a detriment, more so <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"](for me) than the weight.


The iq is great, even wide open.

[airfang]

Purely in terms of sharpness, the f/4L IS is thee best one among Canon's L zooms, from corner to corner wide open. f/2.8L IS cannot really compare to it when stopped down to f4, only say "similar"


So if image sharpness and/or light weight and/or cheaper price are what you are looking for, f4L IS is definitely the one to go.


Otherwise, get the f/2.8L IS without a question.

[richm]

OK, so despite my earlier post leaning towards the f4, I bought the f2.8, of course only a few weeks before the rebate. I LOVE IT. It hasn't come off the camera yet, and I've got some great shots already. I used it an a late afternoon soccer game and got some great low light shots.

[Colin]

You know, while it may very well be that the 2.8 IS version is the 'worst' of the 70-200 family, it's still wicked good, fast, and a pleasure to use.


I haven't regretted buying it, ever.


Then again, I've only really regretted buying one lens, but that's what trade ins are for [:)]

[Finn Brunberg]

Personaly I've just decided for the f4 version because of its smaller size and weigth.
This may not matter to you (if for instance you want to use it from a chair in an indoor sports arena).


I think the better IS more or less compensates the higher f-stopin most situations (of course not if you want to freeze motion orwant a narrow DOF).
Allso consider that the f2.8 is't very sharp when fully open, so whenever possible you'll want to stop down to f4 for bette sharpnes (but will then have the weaker IS).


The price is of course also til be taken into consideration, but to me, size and weigth was the primary aspect.
In your situation I would ask myself:
"If I pay theextra pricefor the 2.8, will that affect the time when I'm able to get the 5DII - and for how long" ;-)


Good luck with your decision.

[Jon Ruyle]

Allso consider that the f2.8 is't very sharp when fully open, so whenever possible you'll want to stop down to f4 for bette sharpnes (but will then have the weaker IS).


Maybe I'm that critical, but I use the f/2.8 IS wide open more often than stopped down and I think it is fine. Sharpness at the long end is very good,
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API=0&amp;Lens=103&amp;Camer a=9&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=245&amp;CameraComp=9]compare to the 200 f/2.8 prime[/url] and to the 135 f/2 prime. I don't claim it is as good as the primes, but I don't think it is so far off. Compared to other f/2.8 zooms, I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS does very well, especially in the corners.


I also own the 135mm f/2, and I rarely use it for its sharpness. I use it when I want the narrow dof and background blur of f/2. You don' have to crop down to 1-1 or blow up to a 48" print to tell the difference between f/2 and f/2.8.





<a title="zoom vs prime" href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API=0&amp;Lens=103&amp;Camer a=9&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=245&amp;CameraComp=9)

[Mark Elberson]

I will soon be purchasing the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS which I plan on shooting with wide open and I couldn't be more excited!!!


Unfortunately it will be $100 more than it was a few days ago :(


Heads up folks, Canon lens pricing went up this afternoon. ("/forums/t/1132.aspx)

[Bill W]

Mark;


Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?


The 70-200 is a pretty expensive for redundancy, unless you're shooting (a lot of) indoor events, then the 2.8 is your answer.


But if this isn't the case, go for a big prime.


Regards


Bill

[Keith B]

Mark;


Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?


The 70-200 is a pretty expensive for redundancy, unless you're shooting (a lot of) indoor events, then the 2.8 is your answer.


But if this isn't the case, go for a big prime.


Regards


Bill









I have both the 24-105 and 100-400 and just purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS before the price hike. I'm not really trying to fill a range gap but for low light and portrait stuff. I like to use the 24-105 for portraits, but I want the IQ and bokeh of the 70-200 2.8.

[Mark Elberson]

Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?





Bill,


I am actually trying to trade/sell my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. I find myself craving faster glass. I love my EF 50mm f/1.4 but I'd much rather have the versatility of a zoom then add another fast prime to my line-up.

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is my outdoor utility lens and I bought it for the long end so I'm not much worried about the 100mm-200mm overlap between it and my future EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The price difference between it and either the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS or the EF 400mm f/5.6 L is about $200 which I think is a bargain considering the EF 400mm f/5.6 L does not have IS and "the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo."






I have both the 24-105 and 100-400 and just purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS before the price hike. I'm not really trying to fill a range gap but for low light and portrait stuff. I like to use the 24-105 for portraits, but I want the IQ and bokeh of the 70-200 2.8.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





Precisely what I am after [:)]

[nimo956]

Have you considered the 135mm f/2 L? It's even cheaper than the 70-200 f/4, has outstanding image quality, and is f/2! It does not, however, have IS, so if you will be hand-holding it a lot, that's something to consider.

[Colin]

Have you considered the 135mm f/2 L? It's even cheaper than the 70-200 f/4, has outstanding image quality, and is f/2! It does not, however, have IS, so if you will be hand-holding it a lot, that's something to consider.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I have, in fact, considered it. If I can get enough credit for my 50mm f/1.2L, I may do more than consider it. But, I'd not give up either of the 70-200 IS zooms for it. Zoom versatility is hard to beat if you're working with stuff that won't stay still for you. I can see the f/2 of being considerable value, but not over the zoom range. I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the second to last lens I'd ever part with, the first being the 24-105 f/4 IS. A good prime may beat either in terms of image quality, but the zooms are just so handy.

[Keith B]

When I first started assembling my kit, I wanted to be the all primes guy especially under 100mm. As I started to get paying jobs, while I didn't mind changing lenses, models lose patients, interior designers lose patience and so forth. I realized zooms were the way to go. For the most part L zooms are so sharp anyway, I don't think you lose a much.


I'll will admit though, sometimes as I look through images I've shot and look at the range used and the want to be artist in me goes "Man I shot that at 24mm (or 50mm), I should have used my prime."

[George Slusher]

Like one other member, I have both IS lenses. (I actually started with the non-IS f/4 lens, but quickly moved up to the IS version.) Which is "better" will depend upon what you want to do, of course. Read Bryan's reviews. I'd also recommend Ken Rockwell's reviews. (Ken can be a bit "controversial," to say the least, but he has a lot of varied experience as a full-time pro in still photography and video.) Of the <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]"My Canon
70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest zoom I've ever used. Not only that,
but the ergonomics and operation are flawless, so flawless that I can
shoot and zoom with only one hand. ...
<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest zoom I've ever used. ..

<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Just get one, I did and I love it.
<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]The
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is as perfect a zoom lens as I have ever used,
and its ergonomics are also first-rate, never getting in the way of a
great photograph."
<p align="left"]I agree, completely, as, apparently do a lot of nature photographers, who value the light weight more than a faster lens. I've read several articles by naturephotographers who primarily use a 500mm f/4L IS but often carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS for closer and wider shots--landscapes, "birdscapes" (groups of birds on the ground), butterflies, flowers, etc. (The 500mm lens has a minimum focus distance of almost 15 ft, vs less than 4 ft for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Basically, you can take a photo of something right at your feet while standing.)
<p align="left"]In his review of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, Ken points out that it is built like the proverbial tank. (The one he borrowed for the review had been dropped off an elephant but still worked perfectly.) That and the advantages of the wider aperture (better for stopping action and blurring backgrounds) were the main advantages of the f/2.8 lens.
<p align="left"]One somewhat startling comparison was on IS performance. Ken has a page on f/4L IS Sharpness and Image Stabilization (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm]70-200mm f/4L IS, Ken says:
<p align="left), which includes a chart ("http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm#vr) of IS performance. Now, check the same tests with the f/2.8L IS ("http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28-is.htm#vr) lens. Here's the startling results: Ken found that the f/4 lens can be handheld at the same or even SLOWER shutter speeds than the f/2.8 lens at longer focal lengths. (Both lenses were wide open.) For example, at 200mm, Ken got 80% "perfectly sharp" at 1/15 and 100% at 1/30 with the f/4L IS lens. With the f/2.8L IS lens, he was able to get only 30% at 1/15 and 50% at 1/30. (I've found similar results with informal tests.) Thus, for shooting STILL subjects in low light, the f/4L IS lens can actually be better. However, remember that IS has little effect on action shots, like sports, birds in flight, air shows, etc. (In the last two situations, it can be better to turn IS OFF, as it slows/delays autofocus and can cause problems if you're panning (or, worse, panning and tilting at the same time, like following a bird or an airplane). Also turn off the IS when the lens is on a tripod. (Even if the IS is "tripod-sensitive"--it stops acting if it detects only very small movements, the IS system runs down the camera batteries faster.)
<p align="left"]I got to a similar position that you are in, but in a round-about way. My first lens past the kit was a Sigma 28-300mm. It's basically terrible for serious photography, though it might be OK for traveling, as long as you can tolerate the mediocre quality and the SLOW f/3.5-6.3 aperture. I then got a bunch of primes, then the non-IS 70-200 f/4L and, two weeks later, the 17-85mm IS. That combination did me in good stead for quite a while. I then replaced the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L with the IS version. Even with a 1.4x extender, that wasn't long enough for nature photography, so I bit the bullet and got the 100-400mm IS lens ($1045 on eBAy). I had also found that the 70-200mm f/4L wasn't fast enough for the indoor horse events I wanted to shoot. I could use my primes, but they only went to 135mm f/2.8 (the "soft-focus" lens, which is actually quite sharp and a LOT cheaper than the huge 135mm f/2L). I debated getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but the cost, even on eBay, gave me the vapors. I happened upon a great deal--the 200mm f/2.8L lens for $500 + shipping, including the black tripod ring and some cheap filters. (The lens + ring at B&amp;H would have cost $900.) Even better, I already had the white tripod ring I got with the non-IS 70-200mm f/4, so I could sell the ring and cut the cost even more. That did OK, but I was switching lenses a lot and I couldn't follow a horse and rider all over the arena very well, as the distance changed quite a bit. Finally, I took an extra dose of my high-blood-pressure medicine and bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for $1325 on eBay. (No pouch, but I had the same one from the 100-400mm or could use a ThinkTank Lens Changer 75.) Now, I need to sell the 200mm lens.
<p align="left"]The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens is OK for some horse show arenas, if they're fairly well-lit. (It lets me avoid using ISO 3200; sometimes, I can drop to ISO 800.) However, I carry several faster (though inexpensive) primes: 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and either 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 for fast action, like barrel racing, pole-bending, and jumping, where I need at least 1/400. (For slower-moving equitation &amp; pleasure classes, 1/200-1/250 can usually work OK. The problem isn't stopping the horse's body--panning can do that with a moderately-fast shutter speed, but its legs, which can be moving at over twice the speed of the body during the recovery and extension phases, when the leg is moving forward.) Yes, I'd love to have the 135mm f/2 and either the Canon 35mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4. (The 85mm f/1.2 autofocus is too slow.) There's no way I'll ever have the 200mm f/2 IS ($5300!). The 300mm f/2.8L IS is still very expensive ($4100) and usually too long. The 400mm f/2.8L IS lens ($6800!) is popular with sports photographers (as is the 70-200mm f/2.8L), but, again, it's too long for most horse shows, though I've seen pros with it, usually mounted on a 1Ds or maybe 5D full-frame camera. There's no way one could use it on a 1.6x body--640mm equivalent--nor really even on the 1.3x 1D--520mm equivalent, especially for a moving target. A horse is 7-8 feet long and the rider's head is often well over 8ft above the ground. That's a MUCH bigger target than a person, so you can't use as long a lens, especially if you want to show the surroundings, like a jump that's 20-24 ft wide.
<p align="left"]

[jusap]

I'm having the same dilemma right now in choosing between these two lenses. Some of my statements might be contradicting sometimes but it just shows how undecided I am.



What I considered so far:

The f4 IS has better image quality than the f2.8 IS
The f4 IS has the latest IS
The f4 IS is a lot cheaper. I can buy a second body with the money I'll save from getting the f2.8 IS
The f4 IS can be considered as more portable compared to the f2.8 IS
The f2.8 IS has a full one more stop advantage
f2.8 can become f4 but not the other way around
The f2.8 IS is heavy, though I haven't tried it yet but from what I've been hearing, it can be a shoulder bender :P
The f2.8 IS is more versatile in most situations
The f2.8 IS has an included tripod ring (just saying :P)
The f2.8 has better bokeh




Yesterday I was leaning towards the f2.8 IS but with the cash that I have to shell out, I'm having second thoughts. Though it can still be attained. I just have to wait a little longer compared to getting the f4 IS but I might regret not getting the f2.8 and that's what's scaring me. hehe. A friend told me that I'm better off getting the f4 IS instead since I'm just a hobbyist. If I ever gain income from taking photographs (which I hope I will be) then that might be the right time to save up and get the f2.8 IS. I'm a bit in a hurry (for nothing hehehe, maybe from owning one I guess) and that is somewhat a factor too. :P


If ever I go for the f4 IS, I might keep it and get a f2.8 IS as well but that would take ages before I have those two. hehe..


Any comments and suggestions from you guys would be greatly appreciated :)

Also, my current gear is a 450D + 17-55mm 2.8 ISU. I'm planning to get a second body :)

Last thing, is it true that there will be a f2.8 IS Mk II soon? It's been rumored for a long while since it's already been a long time it was released. Not sure how true it is but it's a possibility right?

[George Slusher]

The f4 IS has better image quality than the f2.8 IS
The f4 IS has the latest IS
The f4 IS is a lot cheaper. I can buy a second body with the money I'll save from getting the f2.8 IS
The f4 IS can be considered as more portable compared to the f2.8 IS
The f2.8 IS has a full one more stop advantage
f2.8 can become f4 but not the other way around
The f2.8 IS is heavy, though I haven't tried it yet but from what I've been hearing, it can be a shoulder bender :P
The f2.8 IS is more versatile in most situations
The f2.8 IS has an included tripod ring (just saying :P)
The f2.8 has better bokeh





That pretty much sums it up, though there are a few other notes:

The f/4 IS uses a smaller (i.e., cheaper) filter: a Hoya S-HMC UV filter costs $41.85 at B&amp;H; a 77mm filter is $56.85-- but
The f/2.8 IS uses the "standard" filter for most "L" zooms -- and your 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If you get the f/4 IS lens, don't buy another circular polarizer, if you already have a 77mm filter. If you don't, get a 77mm CPL, then use a 67mm-77mm step-up ring to use it on the 70-200mm f/4L IS. You probably can't use the hood at the same time--you'd have to put the hood on, first, then mount the filter, which is non-trivial with the hood on, though it's even worse to get the filter OFF. OTOH, I carry both 67mm &amp; 77mm CP-L filters, mostly because I already had a 67mm filter for the f/4L &amp; a 17-85mm IS lens before I got my first lens that needed 77mm.

You can get knock-off tripod mount ring for the f/4L IS lens on eBay. I haven't tried them, but they're a LOT cheaper than a Canon ring ($11-18 vs $150), so it would probably be smart to try one out. The Tripod Ring A is simpler in design/construction than the Tripod Ring B used for the f/2.8L IS (and the 100-400mm L IS). I was lucky to get a 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) on eBay for $563 with a ring. After that, I got the f/4L IS, then, later, a f/2.8L IS.
You can attach &amp; detach the f/4L IS tripod mount ring without taking the lens off the camera, which you have to do to attach or detach the ring on the f/2.8L IS. Thus, you can quickly take the f/4L IS lens off a tripod without having to unscrew anything or undo the quick release.
Unless you've handled both, it may be hard to appreciate the difference in weight. The f/2.8L IS lens is 56 oz, vs 26 oz for the f/4L IS. That's nearly two pounds more (in US measurements). My 30D without the grip but with a battery and Arca-Swiss-type QR plate weighs about 29 oz. Thus, the camera plus f/4L IS lens weighs about 55 oz--that's less than the f/2.8L IS lens by itself. The f/2.8L IS lens is the second-heaviest zoom Canon makes--only the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens is heavier, and even then only by a few ounces. The f/4L IS lens wouldn't require a tripod and ballhead that's as heavy-duty.

Conversely, the f/4L IS is too light to work well on a gimbal head; the f/2.8L IS lens is OK.
The f/4L IS will fit in a lot of bags &amp; pouches that the f/2.8L IS will not. It's about an inch shorter than the f/2.8L and a lot smaller in diameter.
The f/4L IS lens is much easer to use. I can work the zoom ring with one finger of my right hand, as it is very smooth. Can't do that with the f/2.8L IS behemoth.
If you're not shooting moving subjects, the superior IS on the f/4L IS actually more than makes up for the difference in maximum aperture. Like Ken Rockwell, I've found that I can handhold the f/4L IS at a slower shutter speed than the f/2.8L IS. The slowest speed with which I've been able to get good results at 200mm is between 1/25 &amp; 1/15 sec. (I'm not kidding.) The only reason that I got the f/2.8L IS lens was because I do shoot moving subjects (horses &amp; riders)--the shutter speed to "stop" the horse (1/250-1/1000) is fast enough that the IS doesn't make a lot of difference.
The f/4L IS focuses closer (3.9 ft vs 4.6 ft) and has a corresponding higher maximum magnification (1/4.8 vs 1/5.8--0.21x vs 0.17x).
The better bokeh on the f/2.8L IS comes at a price--poorer image quality.
The f/2.8L IS is built like the proverbial tank.

For the difference in price, you can also add a Canon 1.4x extender. (It works well with both lenses, which will autofocus with the 1.4x extender.)



Several reviewers have called the 70-200mm f/4L IS the best zoom lens today--of any make. I can't agree or disagree, as I haven't handled Nikon cameras and lenses.


In the final analysis, which lens is "better" for you will depend a lot on what you intend to do with it. If you're doing nature and/or landscape photography, the f/4L IS would be an excellent--probably "better"!--choice. Add extension tubes or the Canon 500D close-up lens and it's a halfway decent "macro" lens. The f/2.8L IS would be better for indoor or low-light sports, for example.

[jasbsar]

If you want IS the f2.8 is better value as its not twice the price for IS.


I had the 70-200mm f4 L and it was a great lens. I now have the f2.8 L for the larger aperature, as I didn't see the point in paying twice the price for IS when I used it for sports which need high shutter speeds which negates needing IS. The larger aperature is what I wanted.


Another thing to think about is f2.8 means more light and faster focusing and the 50D has Wide-area AF with 9 cross type points. The high-precision AF system employs 9 cross type points for precise focusing on both horizontal and vertical planes. The central AF point offers sensitivity up to f/2.8. Points are spread out across the AF frame to better accommodate off-centre subjects.


Some say the non IS 70-200mm lenses are sharper due to less elements (no IS elements).


The f2.8 is 77mm so will share filters that you have for your 24-105, 100-400 and 10-22mm, saves using step down rings.

[jusap]

I was looking at the 70-200s for my portrait lens as well as a lens that I can use for events, like my sister's graduation this coming summer. With that in mind, I think the f/2.8 IS would do better than the f/4 IS. But I'm thinking that that I can use the f/4 IS but to get a decent shot I must
jack up my ISO in order to get a shutter speed I need to stop motion. I only
have a 450d on my side and compared to higher end models, ISO handling
isn't that much good in it.


The f/2.8 IS has poorer image quality than the f/4 IS but it's not that much is it? It's still an L and it delivers like an L should, correct?


In general, the best solution is to get both so that you can have an option everytime but that's a hefty price for a hobbyist like me. Though through time, it's possible. I actually have that in mind.... but for now I'm still unsure between the two. f/2.8 IS is enticing but does the price justify it all? hmmm...


About the weight... I'm trying to borrow a f/2.8 IS to see what the fuzz about the weight is. I can approximate but I want to hold the real thing to see the diff :)


My mind shouts f/2.8, my wallet goes f/4! hahaha

[Mark Elberson]

I ended up getting the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. It's actually slightly heavier than the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS but I find it a little easier to hold. That's probably because the balance point changes when you zoom in and out with the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. Anyway, I am enjoying this lens very much and am completely happy that I went with the f/2.8!

[jusap]

You guys have been helping me a lot :) Thank you very much!


Another question though, not quite related on this topic because I'm trying to get to the usability of the lenses and I'm gearing towards a f/2.8 U vs f/4 ISU comparison.


so, we are comparing an f4 IS and an f/2.8 U (IS vs Aperture)


which would you prefer, a telephoto lens that can let you can shoot with a much lower shutter speed because of an IS or a telephoto lens that can give you faster shutter speed because of the f/2.8 aperture?


please correct me in my understanding with the comparison I'm doing (numbers not exact). In a low light situation at ISO 100, the f/4 ISU might get a good sharp image at 1/60 but the f/2.8 U might get that same shot at 1/200. Of course the difference is in the DOF of the shot.


This comparison just popped in my mind because right now I thought of an alternative and that's the f/2.8 U which is almost closely priced with the f/4 ISU.


OT: I now appreciate the variance of the 4 lenses. hehehe





Update: Note for the readers that the f/2.8 U isn't weather sealed compared to the f/4 ISU. I'm now rereading all the other forums I'm in because this is the first time I looked at the comparison of the two. hehehe

[alexniedra]

It seems like you prefer the f/4 IS, and have the means to justify it.



I can't see things like the zoom ring to be significant. Maximum Magnification might not be good on the 2.8 L, but extension tubes help. However, extension tubes can't make a lens faster. Understand what I'm getting at?


The advantages and disadvantages of each have been essentially outlined thus far in the thread. However, your decision should be based on your needs. If you find yourself in low-light situations frequently, and don't want to (or are not allowed to) use flash, go for the f/2.8 version. If your needs are less demanding - Outdoors, well lit, then go for the f/4 version.


Personally, I'm saving for the 70-200 2.8 L IS. I'm indoors a lot of the time, and I feel that I'll appreciate the extra stop of light.

[Dumien]

I own the F2.8 non-IS, which is not that much lighter than the IS version, and I don't really see why everybody is so fussy about the weight. I can carry that lens for a whole 8hours and not feel sore... and I usuallu walk those 8 hours, I mean that I have my camera in the right hand and carry it through the city taking pictures. This happens especially when I'm on vacation.


Really I don't see the problem...but maybe I'm just a bit stronger than the average...dunno, really ^^


just my $0.02


Andy

[jasbsar]

Out of the f4 IS or the f2.8 then I would personally go f2.8. But I want action stopping shutter speeds which "IS" is useless for.


The f4 IS does have the 2 mode version which would be good for panning shots. I have the f2.8 ISso I could play with that type of shot with the 2 mode IS.


Best thing would be save a bit longer and go with the f2.8 IS, then you haveTHE best 70-200mm for all situations. As always spend right once and you won't regret it. A lensWILL lasta number of camera body upgrades.

[jusap]

for the f/4 IS vs f/2.8, I would go for f/4 IS because I'm spoiled by the IS. hehe. The f/4 IS can still be used in low light because of the IS and also by using a higher ISO. I don't shoot sports anyway so I think I can go with that lens.


But to bring the discussion back to the topic f/2.8 IS vs f/4 IS, I'm still leaning towards the f/2.8 IS. Weight is an issue but I believe I'll get used to it (or grow a six pack on my neck LOL) or another solution is by getting a monopod. I'm getting an r-strap too and I think it will help a lot compared to a neck strap. I still have to sample it though.


The thing with the f/4 IS is the price. As I've said, I can buy the lens and another body (40D probably) with the same amount as that of a f/2.8 IS. And with a light frame, it's portable. Good for travel. But do I travel a lot? Not really but when I'm all set, I plan to.


For the f/2.8 IS on the other hand, the 2.8 makes it more versatile as a lens compared to the f/4. I don't mind the IQ difference because both are still L, one might be
crisper than the other but an L is an L. (must get a sharp copy though :) ) IS technology is a bit old on this one but the lens having it is a good plus. The thing I'm thinking about though is if the price is worth the IS of this lens.


I'm saving up anyway so why not save up for the bigger gun to cover all my bases. Not unless I get a windfall, I'll just have to wait for a long time and just think of ways to use the lens.


If things go my way, why not have the two? haha