EF 70-200 is usm f4 or EF 70-200 is usm 2.8II

forkie

forkie

Messages
115
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi al, there has been a lot people saying the f4 is sharper and some say no the 2.8. Is there anyone that has both, as I am considering on the idea of upgrading from my ef70-200 f4 is usm which I have used about 5 times so far.
 
If you've only used it 5 times, do you think it's worth the massive price in difference? Would you get more use out of having a lens with F2.8 and IS over your current lens?
 
I have been unwell for sometime now but getting better and just getting back into photography it's just a hobby for me but I have a lot of Lancaster spitfire hurricane Vulcan shots as I was given access to the planes inside and out have yet to post them but I like taking pics of my hounds play fighting at dusk times just wanted owners views
 
Well a wider aperture and IS would help in the lower light conditions but depending on your body, you could also benefit from an upgrade?

If 70-200mm is a focal length that you use a lot then it could be worth the upgrade to the 70-200mm F2.8L mk2
 
f/2.8 for weddings, portraits and sports... (due to low light nature of work and / or shallower DOF). I doubt there is much difference in sharpness. f/4 is very small and doesn't weigh much more than a smartphone; f/2.8 is a better looking slab.
 
The f4 is sharp but the 2.8 is sharper and sharp wide open which is really were it counts. Both have 4 stop IS which depending on your view is either a good thing or not needed. Personally I would rather have it than not.

If you can live with the price difference and see the extra stop as beneficial then buy the 2.8
 
Compare the weights before deciding.
 
Gaz J said:
The f4 is sharp but the 2.8 is sharper and sharp wide open which is really were it counts. Both have 4 stop IS which depending on your view is either a good thing or not needed. Personally I would rather have it than not.

If you can live with the price difference and see the extra stop as beneficial then buy the 2.8
Click to expand...

He said F4L or F2.8L mk2 so they don't both have IS ;) As far as to which is sharper, the F4L non IS is pretty damn sharp but I've never used a F2.8L mk2 so can't really compare.
 
Phal said:
He said F4L or F2.8L mk2 so they don't both have IS ;)
Click to expand...

forkie said:
Hi al, there has been a lot people saying the f4 is sharper and some say no the 2.8. Is there anyone that has both, as I am considering on the idea of upgrading from my ef70-200 f4 is usm which I have used about 5 times so far.
Click to expand...

He actually said F4 IS USM ... in both his post AND the thread title.
 
lol :/ I'll shut up! I'm sure I read F4L the first time and I even checked it before replying >.>


FAIL!
 
HoppyUK said:
Compare the weights before deciding.
Click to expand...

This is the best advice. Forget the sharpness, aperture or IS, which isn't going to be that noticeable for most shots, but the extra weight will be for every shot.

After carrying the 2.8 IS around all day, I often wonder if I should have just stuck with the 4 IS :D
 
crazy badger said:
This is the best advice. Forget the sharpness, aperture or IS, which isn't going to be that noticeable for most shots, but the extra weight will be for every shot.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on preference but I'd carry the F2.8L mk2 around all day over the F4L IS but I'm a bit of a sharpness freak :/
 
You'd have to be pixel-peeping to see any difference in sharpness, and there's probably as much process variation between copies of the same lens than between different models. I had the 2.8 (admittedly the mk I, not mk II) and actually swapped it for the f4 due to the weight. Both are great lenses but for me (and I'm an amateur not a pro) the 2.8 was too heavy to lug around.
 
magicolor1 said:
You'd have to be pixel-peeping to see any difference in sharpness, and there's probably as much process variation between copies of the same lens than between different models. I had the 2.8 (admittedly the mk I, not mk II) and actually swapped it for the f4 due to the weight. Both are great lenses but for me (and I'm an amateur not a pro) the 2.8 was too heavy to lug around.
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to spot once you start cropping though in my experience but I guess if you don't do much of that then there isn't a lot in it other than weight and price hehe :)
 
Sorry been busy lawn mowers gearbox blew lol A lot of advise I think I will go for both thank you all if I'm going to do a lot of walking f4 but I get to use the airport tower walk so the 2.8 when planes/air shows are on :)
 
Both the f/2.8 IS II and the f/4 IS are incredibly sharp and pretty much on a par, the former is basically an f/2.8 version of the latter.

The f/4 isn't quite as sharp as either but that's not to say it isn't a very good lens.

All down to why you want to upgrade. If you want the extra stop then get the f/2.8 IS II, if you just want the sharpest possible lens then the f/4 IS is cheaper & lighter then the 2.8 and, compared to the basic f/4, sharper, weather sealed and has circular aperture blades.
 
F4L is the best value lens you can buy but the 2.8 is the best lens you can buy bar none!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top