Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist


I am torn between the immediate gratification of the 70-200 f/4L non-IS, which I can purchase in time for my next trip (in a couple of weeks), or putting that $ towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (MkII, perhaps, depending on cost, or the MkI if the difference is significant). As my current lens collection suggests, I am something of an aperture junkie, so I am pretty sure I'll end up with the f/2.8 IS version eventually. But, it's too long for most indoor use right now (until my 2 year-old daughter gets to the point of school plays, etc.).

If wide apertures are your thing, consider the EF 135/2L, which is sharper and faster than any of the 70-200 zooms. It won't give you as much reach, though.


So, in the long run, is it worth having both the f/4 non-IS the f/2.8 IS?

That's a highly personal decision. As an owner of the 70-200/2.8L IS (Mark I), I would say no. I don't see a situation where I will need a lighter but slower (and less sharp) lens. The f/4 non-IS is only marginally sharper in the center than the f/2.8 IS I at f/2.8 except @ 200mm where the f/2.8 is noticeably softer; and when both are at f/4, the latter is sharper across the whole frame. The weight savings is just not that critical to me. If it were, I would have chosen the 70-200/4L IS, which is sharper across the board compared to the f/2.8 IS I at comparable apertures, and without much weight increase over the f/4 non-IS. But the price is also significantly higher.


For those who have both, do you find yourselves reaching for the f/4 when you go on daytime excursions, and reserving the f/2.8 IS for times when you need faster speeds or IS, or does the f/4 non-IS stay at home most of the time? Or, is it more common to sell an f/4 non-IS after getting an f/2.8 IS?

I believe your question is trying to indirectly assess the resale potential of the f/4 non-IS. My impression is that among the 70-200L family, this is not a particularly popular lens. The IS versions are strongly preferred among both f/2.8 and f/4 versions, the former because the cost differential is not very significant relative to their price levels, and the latter because the f/4 IS is just that much sharper than the non-IS. It does cost twice as much but once you look at the test charts it becomes clear why. Being one of the most affordable L zooms available, the 70-200/4L is more accessible to potential buyers. Whether that means you will have more people in the market for one, or that fewer people will want to buy it used if the new lens is already fairly low cost, I can't say.


I also want to add that, ever since I got the 100/2.8L macro IS and the 300/4L IS, I have not really used my 70-200/2.8L IS I. It's not merely the weight; it has to do with the fact that I get better performance and versatility out of the two primes than I get out of the zoom. For example, if I'm too far for the 300mm, the 70-200 isn't going to help. If I'm too close, I can almost always step back. And if I can't, I'll switch to the 100mm and get closer. If the 70-200/2.8L IS II turns out to be a significant improvement to the Mark I, I may consider upgrading, but I don't think that's going to happen. I guess the point of my story is that a few good primes can really change the way you look at zooms.