Canon 70-200 F4 IS vs F2.8 (non-IS)

G

GaryK26

Messages
548
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
For sometime now I have been lusting after a 70-200 2.8 non-IS to replace my F4 non-IS, but am now wondering whether F4 IS is the way to go...

I recently used the F4 non-IS for a christening in a church that wasn't too bad light wise. Admittedly I was shooting at 3200 ISO (maybe even some at 6400) and was pleasantly surprised at how well these came out of my 5D2.

Anyway, here are some of my assumptions / questions regarding the comparison:

- 2.8 will focus faster than the F4 IS
- With the F4, IS will give me an additional 3-4 stops meaning that I can shoot at lower ISO than with the 2.8
- 2.8 is heavier than F4IS (by much?)
- Second hand market, F4IS is slightly cheaper than 2.8 (£100 or so?)
- I'm sure I read somewhere that the OOF / bokeh is pretty much the same between the 2
- How does IQ compare?


Opinions? Experience of either or preferably both?
 
the f4l IS is one of the sharpest canon lenses out there, close to the 135L the 2.8 version is slightly lower quality, the only two factors you'd need the 2.8 is for shutter speed and depth of field
 
Not sure if the IS is really worth it tbh. I cant get away with handholding my 70-200 F4 Is at anything less than 1/250, that may just be me of course. Having said that teamed up with my recently purchased 5D3 its razor sharp wide open and with a 1.4 Canon converter its still great wide open, I have read the 2.8 isnt as sharp until it gets to at least F4. Personally I'd look again at a non IS F4 and save the cash (and the weight!) and get a 1.4 converte as well to give you more options.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Not sure if the IS is really worth it tbh. I cant get away with handholding my 70-200 F4 Is at anything less than 1/250, that may just be me of course.
Click to expand...

When I got my 70-200 f4 IS I tried seeing what I could get away with.
I experimented and to my astonishment I took 4 shots standing, hand-held, 200mm at only 1/6s.
One was was blurred, one would have been good enough for web use and the other two were staggeringly sharp, even looking at 100%.

The weight difference can be significant. I cover quite a few festivals and after three long days lugging two bodies around, I have never regretted my decision to go for the f4. Depends what you want to use the lens for :)
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
When I got my 70-200 f4 IS I tried seeing what I could get away with.
I experimented and to my astonishment I took 4 shots standing, hand-held, 200mm at only 1/6s.
One was was blurred, one would have been good enough for web use and the other two were staggeringly sharp, even looking at 100%.

The weight difference can be significant. I cover quite a few festivals and after three long days lugging two bodies around, I have never regretted my decision to go for the f4. Depends what you want to use the lens for :)
Click to expand...

It's me then :)
Wouldnt surprise me, my wife has a much steadier hand than me, does that sound OK? :)
 
thanks for the replies....

Matt - I already have the F4 non-IS (which I love) and am wondering whether to upgrade to either F4IS or 2.8 non-IS.

I'll keep an eye out on the TP classifieds to see if any come up.
 
GaryK26 said:
thanks for the replies....

Matt - I already have the F4 non-IS (which I love) and am wondering whether to upgrade to either F4IS or 2.8 non-IS.

I'll keep an eye out on the TP classifieds to see if any come up.
Click to expand...
Missed that, sorry.
I'm glad I bought mine with IS but I'm not sure I'd swap out a non IS for an IS model and for me the 2.8 is just too heavy for so little gain. Difficult, how about hiring either/both and see what you prefer.
Matt
 
i did swap out the f4 non is for the f2.8 non is and no they are not razor sharp at f2.8 but there not that bad either and at f4 there as sharp as the f4 version anyway
the way i see it is i now have that extra stop if needed and no IS is going to give you that extra stop of light through the lens

i prefer to have the extra stop rather than try to make up for it with IS after all 9 times out ten there's usually something to rest against :)
 
cosmicma said:
i did swap out the f4 non is for the f2.8 non is and no they are not razor sharp at f2.8 but there not that bad either and at f4 there as sharp as the f4 version anyway
Click to expand...

Sorry but no, the f/4 IS is amazingly sharp and sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS even at f/4. Yes I know some here will disagree until they're blue in the face but frankly I don't care - that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it :)

Regards the OP's dilemma - if you **need** f/2.8 then get it, otherwise I'd go with the f/4 IS. It's sharper, half the weight, more flexible in low light for static subjects and weather sealed.

I used to own an f/4 IS and loved it to death. I "upgraded" at one point to the f/2.8 IS mk1 but was so disappointed that I downgraded back to my original f/4 IS again. The only reason I parted with it again was because I went for the f/2.8 IS mk2.
 
I've owned the F2.8 non IS and the F4 non IS and the F2.8 wasn't much better than the F4. Both i regarded as being very good lenses.
 
I cannot comment on the F4 L IS but I can say the 70-200 F2.8 MKII @ F2.8 is invaluable for christening and wedding work, where I can do with that extra stop of light and the bokeh works a treat, also takes teleconvertors very well too

Thanks,

Andy
 
All things considered, I reckon I'm going to go for the F4 IS, I just don't think that the 2.8 is worth the extra cost & extra weight.

Good shout on the 2.8 Mk2, but that is serious money and as I am not a pro tog, I cannot justify spending that sort of money.

Bottom line is that I love my F4 non-IS and would welcome the additional 3-4 stops that IS would give. If I'm shooting moving objects (eg air show) then disable IS and I've got what I have at the moment.
In bad light situations, I'll be able to use the IS to help me to shoot 1/200 at lower ISO (or obviously shoot at same ISO with a faster shutter).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top