70-200 f/4 IS vs 70-200 f/2.8 II

Hello,

I own the f/4. I bought it when it first was offered. What I like about it, is that it is really sharp across the whole range.

I use it mostly for well lit environments, such as outdoor portraiture, or landscapes. So, it's not been a concern with low light situations. Not a lot, anyway.

The 2.8 II version. What a temptation....but, I'm wondering what I would gain from it. Yes, it would be a full stop faster, and it's got great bokeh.

But, one of the other things I like about the f/4 version is its lower weight. I do a lot of hiking, and I'm guessing that the beasty 2.8 is going to be a heavy thing to lug around.

I would like to hear from those who own both of these lenses, and why you decided to get the 2.8. Also, does it get a lot of use, compared to your f/4.

Maybe you could talk me out of getting it? Or, you can talk me into getting it? :)

Have both and won't part with either. Weight and size of f4 is its advantage when on the river, trail or daytime walks. F2.8 advantage is the extra stop when needed indoors, dusk and dawn as well as the bokeh for portrait work. Both are sharp, with a slight edge for the f2.8 version. Use the f2.8 mostly for covering events and portrait work.

If your own work is starting to push capability of f4 aperture, then it might be time to switch or add the f2.8. Otherwise there won't be that much difference except lens weight and the lightened wallet. Another option might be an even wider prime or two for those purposes when the f4 just isn't wide enough anymore.

The biggest factor, to me personally, is the depth of field. Even when you have plenty of light, the f/2.8 helps to blur backgrounds and make your subject stand out.

Only you can decide how important the weight is to you. Some guys (e.g. videographers) hike all day long with 50 pounds of kit on their back. Others feel that Digital Rebel + 18-55 is too heavy. You just have to decide that for yourself.

I used to own both, however I have sold the f/4L IS.

The f/4 is super sharp, I really loved that lens. However I started shooting quite a few weddings and f/4 just wasn't wide enough for low lit receptions etc. The weight of the f/2.8 is significant compared to the f/4 however it's as sharp as the f/4 wide open, maybe even a bit sharper.

The f/2.8 is on my camera a lot, as was the f/4. I do really like the bokeh at 200mm and f/2.8 though, it's spectacular for portraits.

If you're using it a lot for hiking then you'd definitely appreciate the lighter weight of the f/4. Unless you've got a really good back pack such as one of the f-stop bags, in which case the weight isn't as big an issue.