Thinking off selling my 70-200 f4 is for 70-200mm 2.8 is

R

romeo21

Messages
417
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Been thinking lately that I might sell my canon 70-200mm f4 is for the 2.8 mk2 is

What do you guys think apart the 2,8 does is the IQ better? And at the same time I would try and replace my 17-55mm for the 15-85

Am I making the right choice?
 
Unless you have a pressing reason (i.e. you're really, really missing 55-70mm focal length), I wouldn't swap the 17-55 for the 15-85.

No idea of the IQ differences, but the mk2 is supposed to be excellent. It is a lot heavier than the f4 version though ;)
 
I think you'll find the IQ of the 70-200L f2.8 non IS is not quite as good at f4 as the 70-200L f4 IS wide open but by f5.6 there is very little in it.

Of course at f2.8 there is only one option and if you need that extra speed then your question is answered, however if you need IS then again you have little room for choice.

See here for the differences between the two, the 70-200L f4 IS is a mighty fine lens and you would have to go to a 70-200L f2.8 IS mk2 to be sure of bettering its IQ in that focal range.
 
romeo21 said:
Been thinking lately that I might sell my canon 70-200mm f4 is for the 2.8 mk2 is
Click to expand...

EdBray said:
I think you'll find the IQ of the 70-200L f2.8 non IS is not quite as good at f4 as the 70-200L f4 IS wide open but by f5.6 there is very little in it.

...

the 70-200L f4 IS is a mighty fine lens and you would have to go to a 70-200L f2.8 IS mk2 to be sure of bettering its IQ in that focal range.
Click to expand...

Glad you're following everything Ed :thumbs:
 
lol, that'll teach me to speed read.

Still the final sentance says it all and I've had all three variants, the Mk2 f2.8 IS is outstanding, then the f4 IS then the mk1 f2,8 IS.
 
I dont think you will find much that tops the IQ on the F4 IS. I have used various lenses at shows and stealing them off friends and nothing seems to top my F4 IS. 2.8 gives you the extra speed if you need it, but if you don't I dont then personally I wouldn't be tempted with the "upgrade".
 
The F2.8 IS mk2 might be *fractionally* sharper than the F4 IS but there won't be much in it.

Basically you'll be paying £1k for a stop of light - only you can answer whether that's worth it or not.

I'm slightly perplexed why you're considering paying £1k for an extra stop on the 70-200 but at the same time are considering sacrificing the f/2.8 of your 17-55.
 
romeo21 said:
So are you saying for IQ the 2.8 IS is better than the f4 IS?
Click to expand...

No, I said the Mk2 f2.8 IS is the sharpest slightly over the f4 IS with the f2.8 IS Mk1 as the worst of the three lenses. That is not to say it's bad, but it is not as good as the other two.
 
I only have the 70-200 f4 non IS, can't comment re sharpness etc. However, when I looked into it, one thing to keep in mind I remember was the extra weight of the f2.8.

If you want 2.8 for DOF it would make sense, for one stop it's quite a jump in price + extra weight. I assume the high ISO on the 7d is relatively decent which might help with the speed if that is required?

However if you need want f2.8, there is only one answer!

Sure you'll be happy with either!
 
Hi Romeo, If you do decide to sell your 17-55 and it is nearer the middle of June I will be very interested, this is the next lens that I want to buy but will not have the funds till then.

spike
 
Vertigo1 said:
The F2.8 IS mk2 might be *fractionally* sharper than the F4 IS but there won't be much in it.

Basically you'll be paying £1k for a stop of light - only you can answer whether that's worth it or not.

I'm slightly perplexed why you're considering paying £1k for an extra stop on the 70-200 but at the same time are considering sacrificing the f/2.8 of your 17-55.
Click to expand...

I'm considering sacrificing my 17-55 2.8 because i dont think its as sharp as people make out, maybe i have a bad copy. its sharp when i shoot in daylight but when i shoot in low light the pictures are not sharp just very grainy but maybe its my photography!
 
romeo21 said:
I'm considering sacrificing my 17-55 2.8 because i dont think its as sharp as people make out, maybe i have a bad copy. its sharp when i shoot in daylight but when i shoot in low light the pictures are not sharp just very grainy but maybe its my photography!
Click to expand...

The grain will be the camera body and not the lens...
 
I also find that i hardly shoot at 2.8 so i was thinking maybe sell the 17-55 and get 15-85 and buy a fast prime does that sound sensible?
 
in low light the pictures are not sharp just very grainy
Click to expand...

Expect that's the camera whacking the ISO up, is it set to auto?

Glad I bought the 70-200 f/4 IS, had a 70-200 Sigma f/2.8 before, it was just too heavy and don't miss the extra stop very often, all about compromise for me
 
romeo21 said:
I also find that i hardly shoot at 2.8 so i was thinking maybe sell the 17-55 and get 15-85 and buy a fast prime does that sound sensible?
Click to expand...

That's the point I was making - if you hardly shoot at f/2.8 with the 17-55, is it really worth spending £1k to get f/2.8 on the 70-200?

The 17-55 should definitely be pretty sharp at f/2.8 and very sharp indeed from f/4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top