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

[Jon Ruyle]

I do find the size of the 2.8 a detriment, but mostly because people start asking me questions about it [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[airfang]

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.

[Finn Brunberg]

Personaly I've just decided for the f4 version because of its smaller size and weigth.
This may not matter to you (if for instance you want to use it from a chair in an indoor sports arena).


I think the better IS more or less compensates the higher f-stopin most situations (of course not if you want to freeze motion orwant a narrow DOF).
Allso consider that the f2.8 is't very sharp when fully open, so whenever possible you'll want to stop down to f4 for bette sharpnes (but will then have the weaker IS).


The price is of course also til be taken into consideration, but to me, size and weigth was the primary aspect.
In your situation I would ask myself:
"If I pay theextra pricefor the 2.8, will that affect the time when I'm able to get the 5DII - and for how long" ;-)


Good luck with your decision.

[Jon Ruyle]

Allso consider that the f2.8 is't very sharp when fully open, so whenever possible you'll want to stop down to f4 for bette sharpnes (but will then have the weaker IS).

Maybe I'm that critical, but I use the f/2.8 IS wide open more often than stopped down and I think it is fine. Sharpness at the long end is very good,

[Mark Elberson]

I will soon be purchasing the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS which I plan on shooting with wide open and I couldn't be more excited!!!


Unfortunately it will be $100 more than it was a few days ago


Heads up folks, Canon lens pricing went up this afternoon.

[Bill W]

Mark;


Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?


The 70-200 is a pretty expensive for redundancy, unless you're shooting (a lot of) indoor events, then the 2.8 is your answer.


But if this isn't the case, go for a big prime.


Regards


Bill

[Keith B]

Mark;


Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?


The 70-200 is a pretty expensive for redundancy, unless you're shooting (a lot of) indoor events, then the 2.8 is your answer.


But if this isn't the case, go for a big prime.


Regards


Bill

I have both the 24-105 and 100-400 and just purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS before the price hike. I'm not really trying to fill a range gap but for low light and portrait stuff. I like to use the 24-105 for portraits, but I want the IQ and bokeh of the 70-200 2.8.

[Mark Elberson]

Your lens setup has the 10mm - 400mm pretty well wrapped up. What will you be using 70-200 for that the 24-105 and 100-400 won't cover?

Bill,


I am actually trying to trade/sell my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. I find myself craving faster glass. I love my EF 50mm f/1.4 but I'd much rather have the versatility of a zoom then add another fast prime to my line-up.

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is my outdoor utility lens and I bought it for the long end so I'm not much worried about the 100mm-200mm overlap between it and my future EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The price difference between it and either the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS or the EF 400mm f/5.6 L is about $200 which I think is a bargain considering the EF 400mm f/5.6 L does not have IS and "the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo."

I have both the 24-105 and 100-400 and just purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS before the price hike. I'm not really trying to fill a range gap but for low light and portrait stuff. I like to use the 24-105 for portraits, but I want the IQ and bokeh of the 70-200 2.8.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Precisely what I am after []

[nimo956]

Have you considered the 135mm f/2 L? It's even cheaper than the 70-200 f/4, has outstanding image quality, and is f/2! It does not, however, have IS, so if you will be hand-holding it a lot, that's something to consider.

[Colin]

Have you considered the 135mm f/2 L? It's even cheaper than the 70-200 f/4, has outstanding image quality, and is f/2! It does not, however, have IS, so if you will be hand-holding it a lot, that's something to consider.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I have, in fact, considered it. If I can get enough credit for my 50mm f/1.2L, I may do more than consider it. But, I'd not give up either of the 70-200 IS zooms for it. Zoom versatility is hard to beat if you're working with stuff that won't stay still for you. I can see the f/2 of being considerable value, but not over the zoom range. I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the second to last lens I'd ever part with, the first being the 24-105 f/4 IS. A good prime may beat either in terms of image quality, but the zooms are just so handy.