EF 70-200 f/4L non-IS now, and/or 70-200 f/2.8 IS later?

[neuroanatomist]

Hi All,


I have a gripped T1i and I currently have some good lenses spanning spanning 10-100mm (EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM,EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM). Feeling the need for more reach, I am inclined toward a 70-200mm lens.


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.).


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


Any thoughts and suggestions will be appreciated!


--John

[Brendan7]

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

Do you take hikes? The f/4 is better if you have to carry it handheld for a long period of time. If not, you could buy the f/4 now and sell it later and buy the f/2.8.

Or, is it more common to sell an f/4 non-IS after getting an f/2.8 IS?

I believe so.

I am something of an aperture junkie

so am I! [:P]

[neuroanatomist]

Do you take hikes?

Yes, and snowshoeing, etc. But then again, my arms have gotten pretty strong from carrying my 20-lb daughter around for extended periods of time... []

[Brendan7]

In that case, why not get the f/4 now and sell it later for the 2.8?

[wickerprints]

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.

[iND]

I started with the 70-200 non IS f4 due to cost. It is a great lens. For aperature only I bought the 70-200 f2.8 nonIS. I think both lenses are great. I just have not needed the IS in either case. The 2.8 lets me do more indoors. I use the 2.8 at weddings to shoot from the back of the church with no flash. When I traveled to Alaska this year I took the f4.0 and was pleased with ever shot ( I knew I would not need the extra f stop). The f4 takes great photos and is a great value. So I find a place for both in my collection. I never have considered selling any of my lenses.

I am waiting to hear the advantages of the new 70-200 II.


I you can only get one lens then get the 2.8 if you need one now at a lower cost then get the 4.0. If you end up with both you will sleep a happy man.


Frankly I think IS is overrated.

[Keith B]

Frankly I think IS is overrated.

WATCH OUT!


I don't disagree with you entirely. People have been begging for IS on the 24-70 for a while. Some chose the 24-105 over it just for the IS. I don't think it is necessary for shorter lenses but I do think on the 70-200 it is pretty important.


As far as the OP, I think you should buy what you can afford now and sell later in order to upgrade. You generally don't lose too much of the original value if the lens is kept in good condition.


You may want to consider a used 2.8 or a 4.0 IS also.


I could see a use for both the 2.8 IS and the 4.0 non-IS in one kit. The 4.0 is substantially lighter and is very sharp. On nice days in good light the 4.0 is a great, great lens.

[Daniel Browning]

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

Yes, but you'd have to be a brain surgeon to afford both.

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?

I've had both, but I only kept the f/4 L IS. It's just about the largest size that I can fit in my coat pocket, which is great for going out and leaving the backpack at home. The f/2.8 L IS can't do that for me, so even if I did go back to it I would want the f/4 sometimes.


But that's a small benefit and not worth the cost of owning both lenses, so I suggest getting only one lens: the f/2.8.

[Sean Setters]

Why don't you buy a used 70-200 f/4 on KEH now and a mid-grade monopod and quick release right now. That will suffice for your trip. In the short term, you'll have the focal length. You'll also find out if you need a faster lens in that focal length. If you do, you'll likely be able to sell the f/4 on ebay for what you paid for it (possibly more).





Keep in mind, I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it hasn't seen the light of day in almost 2 months...

[musickna]

Go for instant gratification. I have both and even though I've had my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for a couple of years, I still like to use the 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. Why? Because it is lighter and therefore easier to carry on long hikes and if you don't specifically need the wider aperture and can use a tripod or monopod, it produces beautiful pictures that easily equal those from the more expensive lens.