what to get?

[Fast Glass]

My camera bag is already heavy as hell carrying just the body, 24-70mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 580 exII and a couple of other accessories.

My camera bag weighs 50lbs! Now thats heavy.


John.

[Jarhead5811]

If you can swing it, without going into debt,I don't think you'd regret getting a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM.

[btaylor]

Yeah don't get me wrong, if I could justify it I'd get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk II in a heartbeat. But for the amount I use that focal length it's not going to happen for me. I like my f/4, does a good job for me.


John, maybe I need to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up [:P] 50lbs! I didn't realise we had Sylvester Stallone on the forums [] I'm assuming 49.7lbs of that is made up of that enormous 1 billion mm lens of yours.

[Fast Glass]

Well, OK so mabye my camera bag weighs about 5 lbs. And that's also with another case for my600, about 3lbsBut thats still 42lbs of gear. Butif I want to take all my gear that's what I need to carry.My Minolta 600mm weighs about 5.2lbs, about whatthe 300mm f/2.8. It's about the same diameter but longer than the 300.


Yeah, I think I need to thin down my lens colection.[:P]


John.

[cxr]

actually i've taken out the f2.8 IS Mark I in the picture because like what btaylor have said the f2.8 IS Mark II is in a new different league image quality wise compared to the Mark I. so, deciding between the f4 IS or f2.8 IS Mark II. If I could justify the price of the f2.8 IS Mark II, i might be tempted to get that.

[neuroanatomist]

I have theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM - it truly is an amazing lens! According to Bryan's review, it's a tiny bit sharper than the f/4L IS version - but I really don't think you'd ever notice that in real-world shooting. So, it really comes down to a trade-off in cost/size/weight vs. aperture.


One other thing to consider - will you use it with a teleconverter? If so, the 70-200mm f/2.8 II + 1.4x extender becomes a 98-280mm f/4 thatdelivers surprisingly sharp images,whereas the f/4 lens goes to f/5.6 and suffers more of an IQ hit than the f/2.8 II. Although I wouldn't ever really recommend a 2x extender, the f/2.8 II isn't too bad with one of those, whereas you'd be at f/8 with 2x + the f/4 zoom, meaning no AF on anything but a 1-series body.

[Jon Ruyle]

deciding between the f4 IS or f2.8 IS Mark II. If I could justify the price of the f2.8 IS Mark II, i might be tempted to get that.

I can't tell you if you can "justify" it , but I think the pros and cons are pretty clear


Cons: weight, price


Pros: work in half as much light, narrower DOF/increased background blur. (There are also af advantages to f/2.8, but IMO that is a minor issue).


I think it depends heavily on what you shoot (and how easily you can part with the money, of course).


I use the f/2.8 II on the 5DII, and I really like the narrow DOF for portraits. On the 5DII, it is equivalent to about 45-125 f/1.75 on a crop body, so you're getting the speed and IQ of a prime used on an APS-C with the versatility of a zoom in a range that is- at least for me- ideal for portraits.


On the other hand, full frame f/4 is already very usable and it is much cheaper, and you're giving up little to nothing up in terms of IQ. If you're shooting in good light and don't need the narrow DOF, f/4 may be the way to go.

[cxr]

thanks guys! all of these will reallyhelp me to decide which 70-200 to get. I would say I can't go wrong eitherof the two ( f4 IS or f2.8 IS mark II). thanks again!