Printable View
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)
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).
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.
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
you can always stop down the f4.0 but you can never make the f4.0 into an f2.8
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.
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.
I do find the size of the 2.8 a detriment, but mostly because people start asking me questions about it [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
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.
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.