Canon 70 - 200 IS F4 or F2.8

C

copperband

Messages
123
Name
Ed
Edit My Images
No
Done a search on here but can't find any past discussion around this...

I'm deliberating over which of the above 2 options to go for, so far I am looking at it this way:-

F2.8 (mk1)

+ Faster

- £550 more to buy new
- Twice as heavy as F4

Other smaller points are that its is slightly longer and takes 77mm filters (vs most L lens at 67mm)

F4

+ Half the weight and therefore would be far more useful as a walk round zoom
+ reviews suggest it is equally as sharp as the 2.8
+ Lower cost

- Half the speed!

So....it seems that what it really comes down to is the benefit of the speed of the lens and is that really worth all the trade offs?

Please feel free to throw in observations I've missed, particularly if you own or have owned these lenses?

Thanks :-)
 
I have the f4 non IS, and i always thought, if i were ever to upgrade it, it would be to the f2.8 non IS. (f2.8 IS is too much to ever be an option).

But i recently had a play with an f4 IS, which is also the first IS lens i have used and it was amazing the difference it made.
So now, i think i would go for the f4 IS over the f2.8 non IS.
 
I have both 4fLis and the 2.8Lis mk2, its down to weather you need 2.8 or not or if you want to use extenders.
 
secondhand Mk I 2.8 IS? Is that an option?

Mate has gone from f4 non IS to f4 IS to F2.8 non IS, to f2.8 IS and the last one weighs a ton but produces very fine results......
 
postcardcv said:
I've got a non-IS f4 and an IS f2.8 versions of the lens and the f2.8 is so much better that the f4 hasn't been on the camera since I got it. If you can afford an f2.8 IS then go for it, it will save you upgrading later.
Click to expand...
But get the mk2:D
 
Is it fair to compare the IS vs non IS though as the IS alone on any lens adds so much? I remember when I got my 24 - 105 L I couldn't believe how usable this became in low light situations rather than the blurred mess I was getting on a non IS lens.

Maybe for me it comes down to portability and the trade of over weight and bulk for that extra stop?

I'll be using on my 7D rather than my 40D so in theory I could go up an ISO to compensate for the light issue and retain the better portability?
 
The f4 is sharper than the original f2.8, however the new f2.8 is now on par if not better than the f4. So it's really a case of whether you want a fast lens that's big and bulky or a slightly slower lens that's more lightweight.

(Only talking about the IS versions here, I don't know much about the non IS ones)
 
i have the f4 IS i dont think i'll ever own the 2.8 that lens is just about the biggest thing i ever saw, i could never see myself carrying it around
 
The size of the 2.8 is a real problem. For example if I take the camera along to the park with my children, there will be a kind of 'exclusion zone' around me and the children. OTOH that is quite handy, since the backgrounds are free of other children, not that you can see much background at 200mm/2.8!

I traded my f4l-is for the 2.8. I still wonder if it was the right thing to do, amazingly fine as the 2.8 is for sure. TBH my the camera bag really does need both, but obviously the cost of that makes it impossible.

HTH!
 
I have the f4 IS (a recent acquisition) and previously used the non-IS 2.8 (both canon and sigma). I love the f4 IS.... IMHO it is far better (specifically for my needs). It really is so much easier to cart around and use and is pin sharp. As you said you can use the ISO ability of the 7D to compensate for low light.

The thing to really consider is how much do you value low light ability over portability.

A tog friend of mine recently upgraded to the 2.8 IS from the f4 IS. He is now back to the f4 IS and sold the 2.8 .. his preference but it says alot.
 
I'm actually just sold my f/4 IS to fund a f/2.8 non-is. I only bought the f/4 IS because it was sharpest but never actually used the IS. Although when I bought it I thought I would. Then I bought a sigma 120-300 which weighs a tonne and I've never wished for IS, so I see no reason to have the f/2.8 version in IS. The non-is is slightly sharper and faster focusing compared to the Is'd version anyway. I know which I'd rather have.
 
I have owned the 70-200mm 2.8L IS twice, and sold it twice.

Not because it wasn't a great lens, it's just that I have a nasty habit of carrying all my gear with me when I go shooting as I am indecisive so it got pretty heavy. I own the 70-200mm 4L IS now and happy with the results and weight, I only use that range outdoors in daylight on weddings/events so f/4 is not a problem. I don't really use it for street stuff and social shoots though as I normally attract some very unsavoury looks from people when I have it on the camera. For street I shoot with a 85mm 1.8 (136 on a 1.6 crop) or a 100mm 2.8L macro (160 on 1.6 crop). Darker, smaller and more discreet.
 
Thanks for all comments, very informative and has helped me make my mind up on the F4
Overall I'm going to get more use out of it due to the portability and at the end of the day taking it with the camera is what it's all about!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top