Canon 70-200 F4 IS or Canon 70-200 f2.8

FreeloaderJoe

FreeloaderJoe

Messages
510
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at picking up a second hand 70-200 in the next couple of days.
The 70-200 IS f2.8 is too expensive and well out of my price range, but can pick up both the above lens for a reasonable price.

Which should I choose and are there different versions of the standard f2.8 70-200mm lens which i should watch out for?
 
f/4 IS is great lens particularly for travel, landscapes, and studio.

f/2.8 is excellent for events, portraits, sports and some wildlife even in low light

both very sharp

It depends what factors are more important for you. If you do a bit of everything and get f/4, chances are you will end up buying all the primes, and still wanting more. This is where I am btw.
 
Get the f/4 IS. Sharper, much lighter, brilliant IS. Unless you need f/2.8.
 
I went for the f4 IS, and I personally think it's fantastic. It's very sharp & quite light, love using it.

I suppose it depends if you want / need f2.8? I can live without it for now but if your style / work would benefit it might be worth it.

I'm going to try out a 135L f2 to complement my 70-200 f4 which mainly gets used for travel.
 
Also looking for a 70-200mm and noticed there's a lot of f/4's around but no f/2.8's. I'm trying to hold out for a f/2.8 one as I dont need IS and the the faster aperture always comes in handy.

That's my thinking anyway
 
I'm very interested in this thread as thinking the same myself.

Out of interest why would you use such a lens for landscape? Surely a wider lens would be more suited to this?

What is the rough going rate for the lenses mentioned? I've seen a Canon 70-200 sell on here for £295 recently, and the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 seems to go for around £320.
 
No reason why you cant use a 70-200 for a landscape. You can focus on a different composition, maybe pull out a feature of the landscape. You also get that compression of distance (not sure of the technical term) effect from a telephoto.
 
Asked myself the same question when I had Canon. Went with the 2.8. Figured the extra stop beneficial over the IS. Most of my subjects are moving !
 
Have had 70-200 f4 IS, f2.8 mk1 IS and now the mk2 IS.

Of all these I think the f4 IS offers the best allround package.

It is not a better lens than the new f2.8 but it is amazing for the money especially used.

Sorry, I cannot comment on the f2.8 non-IS which I gather is decently sharp (from friends).

Depends on your expectations but I doubt the f2.8 non-IS is critically sharp wide open whereas the f4 IS version is.

So, you probably only lose 2/3 or 1/3 of a stop in real life useage with the f4 IS.

Unless you desperately need the f2.8, and I guess you do not otherwise you would not even be considering the f4 lenses, I doubt you would be unhappy with a 70-200 f4 IS.
 
I reckon F4 is bokehlicious enough AT 100-200mm for most normal portrait situations.

Is the F4 IS still in production? How long have they been around and what's a good price to pay for one?
 
This is a current lens.

You should be paying around 610-630GBP privately or 650GBP used from retailers with a guarantee.

Camerapricebuster will give you the new price at selected retailers.

Anything less is a bargain.
 
+1 for the f4... The 2.8 will give you one stop max extra light. Unless you are pushing the camera to its limit of ISO, the IS will be more useful for general photography IMHO
 
f/4 IS lets you shoot hand held with slower shutter speeds. IS is good if you want to keep the lens steady. It's not so useful if you are shooting lively action.
f/2.8 allows you to achieve faster shutter speeds. Great for action.

In addition....
f/2.8 offers the opportunity for shallower DOF.
f/2.8 offers faster and more accurate AF.
f/2.8 offers a brighter viewfinder.
f/2.8 non IS lens on a tripod will do at least as well as an f/4 IS lens hand held.
f/2.8 can take a 2C TC and retain AF on all AF points on all Canon bodies.

I recognise the value of IS. I recognise the value of f/2.8. Lenses are not like camera bodies, which come and go. They are a long term investment that should last a decade or two. That's why I ponied up for the lens that has it all.
 
Hi Tim

I take onboard all of the benefits of the f2.8 which is why I also have one.

Out of interest I've just had a quick look at Photozone and their lens test show at all focal lengths the f4 wide open to be sharper than the f2.8 non-IS at all apertures.

I am aware of the limitations of such tests and literally spent two minutes reading the text to see if they were comarable but this is just food for thought for the OP.

Basically, IMHO, if you spend your life stopping down a 2.8 (ok only down to 3.2 or 3.5 I admit, like I used to do) to get the images suitably sharp then you may as well buy the super sharp f4 with added IS in the first place.
 
There is a comparison here, for which you can pick different focal lengths and apertures....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

It does seem like at 70mm the f/2.8 lens is pretty iffy, but at longer focal lengths things are not so cut and dried and probably not significant enough to be the major influence in choosing one lens over the other.

I do know that having struggled when shooting basketball at 1/250, f/2.8, 6400 ISO with my 7D I would have been a bit effed if I'd only had an f/4 lens to use. Even f/2.8 wasn't really the answer, but it was that or my 85/1.8 and that would have been way too limiting. I also remember shooting a wedding when I had my 50D. Then I was shooting with a tripod at 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO. I needed a faster aperture then too, not a slower one. When noise is killing your pixel level quality (if not the whole image) then I guess ultimate lens sharpness might not be the most pressing issue. An extra stop of light coming into the lens may just prove to be more important.

It's horses for courses, of course. Buy what suits your needs, not somebody else's. :)
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
There is a comparison here, for which you can pick different focal lengths and apertures....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

It does seem like at 70mm the f/2.8 lens is pretty iffy, but at longer focal lengths things are not so cut and dried and probably not significant enough to be the major influence in choosing one lens over the other.

I do know that having struggled when shooting basketball at 1/250, f/2.8, 6400 ISO with my 7D I would have been a bit effed if I'd only had an f/4 lens to use. Even f/2.8 wasn't really the answer, but it was that or my 85/1.8 and that would have been way too limiting. I also remember shooting a wedding when I had my 50D. Then I was shooting with a tripod at 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO. I needed a faster aperture then too, not a slower one. When noise is killing your pixel level quality (if not the whole image) then I guess ultimate lens sharpness might not be the most pressing issue. An extra stop of light coming into the lens may just prove to be more important.

It's horses for courses, of course. Buy what suits your needs, not somebody else's. :)
Click to expand...

Some good points well made , particularly the last two.
 
I have used the f4L non IS and the f2.8 non IS and the f2.8 is streets ahead. I haven't used the f4L IS yet so cannot comment on that lens.
 
tdodd said:
f/4 IS lets you shoot hand held with slower shutter speeds. IS is good if you want to keep the lens steady. It's not so useful if you are shooting lively action.
f/2.8 allows you to achieve faster shutter speeds. Great for action.

In addition....
f/2.8 offers the opportunity for shallower DOF.
f/2.8 offers faster and more accurate AF.
f/2.8 offers a brighter viewfinder.
f/2.8 non IS lens on a tripod will do at least as well as an f/4 IS lens hand held.
f/2.8 can take a 2C TC and retain AF on all AF points on all Canon bodies.

I recognise the value of IS. I recognise the value of f/2.8. Lenses are not like camera bodies, which come and go. They are a long term investment that should last a decade or two. That's why I ponied up for the lens that has it all.
Click to expand...

That's all true Tim, and I guess you can save up for the 2.8, but it doesn't make it any lighter. It's double the f/4 and that's really what swung me towards the f/4 IS, which is a heck of a fine lens by any measure :thumbs:

But now we have the new 2.8 IS MkII, which presents a new dilemma at least for me. It was not available when I bought the f/4 IS, but now it is, I'm thinking that maybe I could pony up and put up with the weight (certainly not a problem when you're using it, only carrying). Maybe ;)

The big change is that it's so fabulously sharp and with f/2.8 it can take a 2x extender and deliver 400mm f/5.6 to a standard that comes within a whisker of the 100-400L, which I sold to fund a 5D2. And I miss it. If you need extra reach, and look at the 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII in that way, it's a bargain two lenses in one (and lighter than two!).

It's never easy is it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top