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

[Keith B]

When I first started assembling my kit, I wanted to be the all primes guy especially under 100mm. As I started to get paying jobs, while I didn't mind changing lenses, models lose patients, interior designers lose patience and so forth. I realized zooms were the way to go. For the most part L zooms are so sharp anyway, I don't think you lose a much.


I'll will admit though, sometimes as I look through images I've shot and look at the range used and the want to be artist in me goes "Man I shot that at 24mm (or 50mm), I should have used my prime."

[George Slusher]

Like one other member, I have both IS lenses. (I actually started with the non-IS f/4 lens, but quickly moved up to the IS version.) Which is "better" will depend upon what you want to do, of course. Read Bryan's reviews. I'd also recommend Ken Rockwell's reviews. (Ken can be a bit "controversial," to say the least, but he has a lot of varied experience as a full-time pro in still photography and video.) Of the [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm]70-200mm f/4L IS[/url], Ken says:
<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]"My Canon
70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest zoom I've ever used. Not only that,
but the ergonomics and operation are flawless, so flawless that I can
shoot and zoom with only one hand. ...
<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is the sharpest zoom I've ever used. ..

<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Just get one, I did and I love it.
<p align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]The
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is as perfect a zoom lens as I have ever used,
and its ergonomics are also first-rate, never getting in the way of a
great photograph."
<p align="left"]I agree, completely, as, apparently do a lot of nature photographers, who value the light weight more than a faster lens. I've read several articles by naturephotographers who primarily use a 500mm f/4L IS but often carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS for closer and wider shots--landscapes, "birdscapes" (groups of birds on the ground), butterflies, flowers, etc. (The 500mm lens has a minimum focus distance of almost 15 ft, vs less than 4 ft for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Basically, you can take a photo of something right at your feet while standing.)
<p align="left"]In his review of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, Ken points out that it is built like the proverbial tank. (The one he borrowed for the review had been dropped off an elephant but still worked perfectly.) That and the advantages of the wider aperture (better for stopping action and blurring backgrounds) were the main advantages of the f/2.8 lens.
<p align="left"]One somewhat startling comparison was on IS performance. Ken has a page on [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is-sharpness.htm]f/4L IS Sharpness and Image Stabilization[/url], which includes a [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm#vr]chart[/url] of IS performance. Now, check the same tests with the [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28-is.htm#vr]f/2.8L IS[/url] lens. Here's the startling results: Ken found that the f/4 lens can be handheld at the same or even SLOWER shutter speeds than the f/2.8 lens at longer focal lengths. (Both lenses were wide open.) For example, at 200mm, Ken got 80% "perfectly sharp" at 1/15 and 100% at 1/30 with the f/4L IS lens. With the f/2.8L IS lens, he was able to get only 30% at 1/15 and 50% at 1/30. (I've found similar results with informal tests.) Thus, for shooting STILL subjects in low light, the f/4L IS lens can actually be better. However, remember that IS has little effect on action shots, like sports, birds in flight, air shows, etc. (In the last two situations, it can be better to turn IS [b]OFF[/b], as it slows/delays autofocus and can cause problems if you're panning (or, worse, panning and tilting at the same time, like following a bird or an airplane). Also turn off the IS when the lens is on a tripod. (Even if the IS is "tripod-sensitive"--it stops acting if it detects only very small movements, the IS system runs down the camera batteries faster.)
<p align="left"]I got to a similar position that you are in, but in a round-about way. My first lens past the kit was a Sigma 28-300mm. It's basically terrible for serious photography, though it might be OK for traveling, as long as you can tolerate the mediocre quality and the SLOW f/3.5-6.3 aperture. I then got a bunch of primes, then the non-IS 70-200 f/4L and, two weeks later, the 17-85mm IS. That combination did me in good stead for quite a while. I then replaced the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L with the IS version. Even with a 1.4x extender, that wasn't long enough for nature photography, so I bit the bullet and got the 100-400mm IS lens ($1045 on eBAy). I had also found that the 70-200mm f/4L wasn't fast enough for the indoor horse events I wanted to shoot. I could use my primes, but they only went to 135mm f/2.8 (the "soft-focus" lens, which is actually quite sharp and a LOT cheaper than the huge 135mm f/2L). I debated getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but the cost, even on eBay, gave me the vapors. I happened upon a great deal--the 200mm f/2.8L lens for $500 + shipping, including the black tripod ring and some cheap filters. (The lens + ring at B&amp;H would have cost $900.) Even better, I already had the white tripod ring I got with the non-IS 70-200mm f/4, so I could sell the ring and cut the cost even more. That did OK, but I was switching lenses a lot and I couldn't follow a horse and rider all over the arena very well, as the distance changed quite a bit. Finally, I took an extra dose of my high-blood-pressure medicine and bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for $1325 on eBay. (No pouch, but I had the same one from the 100-400mm or could use a ThinkTank Lens Changer 75.) Now, I need to sell the 200mm lens.
<p align="left"]The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens is OK for some horse show arenas, if they're fairly well-lit. (It lets me avoid using ISO 3200; sometimes, I can drop to ISO 800.) However, I carry several faster (though inexpensive) primes: 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and either 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 for fast action, like barrel racing, pole-bending, and jumping, where I need at least 1/400. (For slower-moving equitation &amp; pleasure classes, 1/200-1/250 can usually work OK. The problem isn't stopping the horse's body--panning can do that with a moderately-fast shutter speed, but its legs, which can be moving at over twice the speed of the body during the recovery and extension phases, when the leg is moving forward.) Yes, I'd love to have the 135mm f/2 and either the Canon 35mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4. (The 85mm f/1.2 autofocus is too slow.) There's no way I'll ever have the 200mm f/2 IS ($5300!). The 300mm f/2.8L IS is still very expensive ($4100) and usually too long. The 400mm f/2.8L IS lens ($6800!) is popular with sports photographers (as is the 70-200mm f/2.8L), but, again, it's too long for most horse shows, though I've seen pros with it, usually mounted on a 1Ds or maybe 5D full-frame camera. There's no way one could use it on a 1.6x body--640mm equivalent--nor really even on the 1.3x 1D--520mm equivalent, especially for a moving target. A horse is 7-8 feet long and the rider's head is often well over 8ft above the ground. That's a MUCH bigger target than a person, so you can't use as long a lens, especially if you want to show the surroundings, like a jump that's 20-24 ft wide.
<p align="left"]

[jusap]

I'm having the same dilemma right now in choosing between these two lenses. Some of my statements might be contradicting sometimes but it just shows how undecided I am.



What I considered so far:

• The f4 IS has better image quality than the f2.8 IS
• The f4 IS has the latest IS
• The f4 IS is a lot cheaper. I can buy a second body with the money I'll save from getting the f2.8 IS
• The f4 IS can be considered as more portable compared to the f2.8 IS
• The f2.8 IS has a full one more stop advantage
• f2.8 can become f4 but not the other way around
• The f2.8 IS is heavy, though I haven't tried it yet but from what I've been hearing, it can be a shoulder bender :P
• The f2.8 IS is more versatile in most situations
• The f2.8 IS has an included tripod ring (just saying :P)
• The f2.8 has better bokeh

Yesterday I was leaning towards the f2.8 IS but with the cash that I have to shell out, I'm having second thoughts. Though it can still be attained. I just have to wait a little longer compared to getting the f4 IS but I might regret not getting the f2.8 and that's what's scaring me. hehe. A friend told me that I'm better off getting the f4 IS instead since I'm just a hobbyist. If I ever gain income from taking photographs (which I hope I will be) then that might be the right time to save up and get the f2.8 IS. I'm a bit in a hurry (for nothing hehehe, maybe from owning one I guess) and that is somewhat a factor too. :P


If ever I go for the f4 IS, I might keep it and get a f2.8 IS as well but that would take ages before I have those two. hehe..


Any comments and suggestions from you guys would be greatly appreciated

Also, my current gear is a 450D + 17-55mm 2.8 ISU. I'm planning to get a second body

Last thing, is it true that there will be a f2.8 IS Mk II soon? It's been rumored for a long while since it's already been a long time it was released. Not sure how true it is but it's a possibility right?

[George Slusher]

[*]The f4 IS has better image quality than the f2.8 IS[*]The f4 IS has the latest IS[*]The f4 IS is a lot cheaper. I can buy a second body with the money I'll save from getting the f2.8 IS[*]The f4 IS can be considered as more portable compared to the f2.8 IS[*]The f2.8 IS has a full one more stop advantage[*]f2.8 can become f4 but not the other way around[*]The f2.8 IS is heavy, though I haven't tried it yet but from what I've been hearing, it can be a shoulder bender :P[*]The f2.8 IS is more versatile in most situations[*]The f2.8 IS has an included tripod ring (just saying :P)[*]The f2.8 has better bokeh

That pretty much sums it up, though there are a few other notes:

• The f/4 IS uses a smaller (i.e., cheaper) filter: a Hoya S-HMC UV filter costs $41.85 at B&amp;H; a 77mm filter is $56.85-- but
• The f/2.8 IS uses the "standard" filter for most "L" zooms -- and your 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If you get the f/4 IS lens, don't buy another circular polarizer, if you already have a 77mm filter. If you don't, get a 77mm CPL, then use a 67mm-77mm step-up ring to use it on the 70-200mm f/4L IS. You probably can't use the hood at the same time--you'd have to put the hood on, first, then mount the filter, which is non-trivial with the hood on, though it's even worse to get the filter OFF. OTOH, I carry both 67mm &amp; 77mm CP-L filters, mostly because I already had a 67mm filter for the f/4L &amp; a 17-85mm IS lens before I got my first lens that needed 77mm.
  
• You can get knock-off tripod mount ring for the f/4L IS lens on eBay. I haven't tried them, but they're a LOT cheaper than a Canon ring ($11-18 vs $150), so it would probably be smart to try one out. The Tripod Ring A is simpler in design/construction than the Tripod Ring B used for the f/2.8L IS (and the 100-400mm L IS). I was lucky to get a 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) on eBay for $563 with a ring. After that, I got the f/4L IS, then, later, a f/2.8L IS.
• You can attach &amp; detach the f/4L IS tripod mount ring without taking the lens off the camera, which you have to do to attach or detach the ring on the f/2.8L IS. Thus, you can quickly take the f/4L IS lens off a tripod without having to unscrew anything or undo the quick release.
• Unless you've handled both, it may be hard to appreciate the difference in weight. The f/2.8L IS lens is 56 oz, vs 26 oz for the f/4L IS. That's nearly two pounds more (in US measurements). My 30D without the grip but with a battery and Arca-Swiss-type QR plate weighs about 29 oz. Thus, the camera plus f/4L IS lens weighs about 55 oz--that's less than the f/2.8L IS lens by itself. The f/2.8L IS lens is the second-heaviest zoom Canon makes--only the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens is heavier, and even then only by a few ounces. The f/4L IS lens wouldn't require a tripod and ballhead that's as heavy-duty.
  
• Conversely, the f/4L IS is too light to work well on a gimbal head; the f/2.8L IS lens is OK.
• The f/4L IS will fit in a lot of bags &amp; pouches that the f/2.8L IS will not. It's about an inch shorter than the f/2.8L and a lot smaller in diameter.
• The f/4L IS lens is much easer to use. I can work the zoom ring with one finger of my right hand, as it is very smooth. Can't do that with the f/2.8L IS behemoth.
• If you're not shooting moving subjects, the superior IS on the f/4L IS actually more than makes up for the difference in maximum aperture. Like Ken Rockwell, I've found that I can handhold the f/4L IS at a slower shutter speed than the f/2.8L IS. The slowest speed with which I've been able to get good results at 200mm is between 1/25 &amp; 1/15 sec. (I'm not kidding.) The only reason that I got the f/2.8L IS lens was because I do shoot moving subjects (horses &amp; riders)--the shutter speed to "stop" the horse (1/250-1/1000) is fast enough that the IS doesn't make a lot of difference.
• The f/4L IS focuses closer (3.9 ft vs 4.6 ft) and has a corresponding higher maximum magnification (1/4.8 vs 1/5.8--0.21x vs 0.17x).
• The better bokeh on the f/2.8L IS comes at a price--poorer image quality.
• The f/2.8L IS is built like the proverbial tank.
  
• For the difference in price, you can also add a Canon 1.4x extender. (It works well with both lenses, which will autofocus with the 1.4x extender.)

Several reviewers have called the 70-200mm f/4L IS the best zoom lens today--of any make. I can't agree or disagree, as I haven't handled Nikon cameras and lenses.


In the final analysis, which lens is "better" for you will depend a lot on what you intend to do with it. If you're doing nature and/or landscape photography, the f/4L IS would be an excellent--probably "better"!--choice. Add extension tubes or the Canon 500D close-up lens and it's a halfway decent "macro" lens. The f/2.8L IS would be better for indoor or low-light sports, for example.

[jasbsar]

If you want IS the f2.8 is better value as its not twice the price for IS.


I had the 70-200mm f4 L and it was a great lens. I now have the f2.8 L for the larger aperature, as I didn't see the point in paying twice the price for IS when I used it for sports which need high shutter speeds which negates needing IS. The larger aperature is what I wanted.


Another thing to think about is f2.8 means more light and faster focusing and the 50D has Wide-area AF with 9 cross type points. The high-precision AF system employs 9 cross type points for precise focusing on both horizontal and vertical planes. The central AF point offers sensitivity up to f/2.8. Points are spread out across the AF frame to better accommodate off-centre subjects.


Some say the non IS 70-200mm lenses are sharper due to less elements (no IS elements).


The f2.8 is 77mm so will share filters that you have for your 24-105, 100-400 and 10-22mm, saves using step down rings.

[jusap]

I was looking at the 70-200s for my portrait lens as well as a lens that I can use for events, like my sister's graduation this coming summer. With that in mind, I think the f/2.8 IS would do better than the f/4 IS. But I'm thinking that that I can use the f/4 IS but to get a decent shot I must
jack up my ISO in order to get a shutter speed I need to stop motion. I only
have a 450d on my side and compared to higher end models, ISO handling
isn't that much good in it.


The f/2.8 IS has poorer image quality than the f/4 IS but it's not that much is it? It's still an L and it delivers like an L should, correct?


In general, the best solution is to get both so that you can have an option everytime but that's a hefty price for a hobbyist like me. Though through time, it's possible. I actually have that in mind.... but for now I'm still unsure between the two. f/2.8 IS is enticing but does the price justify it all? hmmm...


About the weight... I'm trying to borrow a f/2.8 IS to see what the fuzz about the weight is. I can approximate but I want to hold the real thing to see the diff


My mind shouts f/2.8, my wallet goes f/4! hahaha

[Mark Elberson]

I ended up getting the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. It's actually slightly heavier than the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS but I find it a little easier to hold. That's probably because the balance point changes when you zoom in and out with the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. Anyway, I am enjoying this lens very much and am completely happy that I went with the f/2.8!

[jusap]

You guys have been helping me a lot Thank you very much!


Another question though, not quite related on this topic because I'm trying to get to the usability of the lenses and I'm gearing towards a f/2.8 U vs f/4 ISU comparison.


so, we are comparing an f4 IS and an f/2.8 U (IS vs Aperture)


which would you prefer, a telephoto lens that can let you can shoot with a much lower shutter speed because of an IS or a telephoto lens that can give you faster shutter speed because of the f/2.8 aperture?


please correct me in my understanding with the comparison I'm doing (numbers not exact). In a low light situation at ISO 100, the f/4 ISU might get a good sharp image at 1/60 but the f/2.8 U might get that same shot at 1/200. Of course the difference is in the DOF of the shot.


This comparison just popped in my mind because right now I thought of an alternative and that's the f/2.8 U which is almost closely priced with the f/4 ISU.


OT: I now appreciate the variance of the 4 lenses. hehehe





Update: Note for the readers that the f/2.8 U isn't weather sealed compared to the f/4 ISU. I'm now rereading all the other forums I'm in because this is the first time I looked at the comparison of the two. hehehe

[alexniedra]

It seems like you prefer the f/4 IS, and have the means to justify it.



I can't see things like the zoom ring to be significant. Maximum Magnification might not be good on the 2.8 L, but extension tubes help. However, extension tubes can't make a lens faster. Understand what I'm getting at?


The advantages and disadvantages of each have been essentially outlined thus far in the thread. However, your decision should be based on your needs. If you find yourself in low-light situations frequently, and don't want to (or are not allowed to) use flash, go for the f/2.8 version. If your needs are less demanding - Outdoors, well lit, then go for the f/4 version.


Personally, I'm saving for the 70-200 2.8 L IS. I'm indoors a lot of the time, and I feel that I'll appreciate the extra stop of light.

[Dumien]

I own the F2.8 non-IS, which is not that much lighter than the IS version, and I don't really see why everybody is so fussy about the weight. I can carry that lens for a whole 8hours and not feel sore... and I usuallu walk those 8 hours, I mean that I have my camera in the right hand and carry it through the city taking pictures. This happens especially when I'm on vacation.


Really I don't see the problem...but maybe I'm just a bit stronger than the average...dunno, really ^^


just my $0.02


Andy