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

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 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.

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 :)

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.

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!
<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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
<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!

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

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...)