canon 70-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f4

Eddy · September 29, 2009

Hello all:
Just wondering if anyone has these lenses...I have already read the canon write up on both lenses..the f4 IS USM is all weather sealed (nice) the 2.8 is sweet but heavy. Trying to decipher which is the one i want..I am not into birdingi just want something to compliment my mpe 65 2.8 macro... 24-70 2.8....I like both for different reasons, And i have heard, and seen some good shots of the f4 as in IQ, and bookeh's for both are excellent........................... going bonkers here.
E.

Scott_Quier · September 29, 2009

I have the 2.8 IS and the f/4 (non-IS) available to me (my son has the f/4). I noticed:

The ....

IS is sweet, quick, and very stable
f/2.8 IS is a touch soft until about f/3.5 and then it's tack sharp
f/2.8 IS is heavy, especially if you are lugging it around for hours at a time
Bokeh is sweet with both lenses, just easier to get there with the f/2.8 than with the f/4 (D'oh)
f/4 is sharp wide open
f/4 is a very nice weight - looking forward to taking it with me to Acadia next week

These two lenses are not interchangeable - that is, they are best suited to different purposes. After having a play with Matt's f/4, I'm starting to think that getting a copy for myself will be the next thing on my list. On a FF or cropper, I can easily see this as a premium portrait lens in (or out) of the studio. Or maybe the 100-400, oh the agony of (in)decision.

It really is a question of what you are shooting and under what conditions.

ziggy53 · September 29, 2009

I believe that the IS versions of both apertures are weather sealed "but" they require a "sealed" front filter to complete the sealing system. You also need a sealed version teleconverter to maintain the weather seal at the rear end and they need to be used on a weather sealed camera body as well. (1D/1Ds primarily)

I have:

EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM

I bought the f2.8 for sports and especially night sports. I did not need the IS as I would use the lens on a video tripod with a fluid head (which worked splendidly BTW.)

I bought the f4 IS to be part of a travel kit, and I do believe it is best in that role. If I go on a trip and I know I will be doing indoor images, I'll bring the f2.8 instead.

The f4 is slightly sharper at f4 than the f2.8 at f4, but only slightly. The f2.8 is slightly faster to focus, except in low light where it is noticeably faster to focus (especially on the 1D camera body). Both are very fast and accurate in good light on any Canon body.

I believe that the f4 IS version is a more advanced IS than the f2.8 IS.

Contrast and color are consistent between versions. The IS versions have the best apertures with more leaves and the leaves are curved for better bokeh. The f2.8 IS version is noticeably heavier than the non-IS version.

The f4 versions do not come with a tripod ring, which I do recommend as an optional purchase. The f4 version hoods are the "plain" hoods while the f2.8 are the "tulip" hoods.

Both the f4 and f2.8 tolerate the 1.4x teleconverter nicely, but I do like the f4 results better in good light. In subdued light the f2.8 plus converter is much faster to focus, and in low light the f2.8 version continues to work where the f4 stops AF. (Again, with the teleconverter.) I am not super pleased with either lens and the 2x converters. (I do not recommend the 2x converter with these zoom lenses.)

The f2.8 (non-IS) fogged over exactly once during a game when there was a cold snap during the game. I had to take the lens back to the car and hold it over the defroster air stream for a few minutes, and then I was good to go the rest of the game.

If I could only afford one version it would be the f2.8. I am that pleased with it in almost any lighting condition. I don't know if I would consider the IS f2.8 or not. A lot of folks truly believe that the f2.8 IS is the best of the family of Canon 70-200mm zoom lenses.

Village Idiot · September 29, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that the IS versions of both apertures are weather sealed "but" they require a "sealed" front filter to complete the sealing system. You also need a sealed version teleconverter to maintain the weather seal at the rear end and they need to be used on a weather sealed camera body as well. (1D/1Ds primarily)

Why? They have the sealing gaskets on the rear of the lens. Are you just stating that if it's used with a TC it has to be a sealed TC to keep the weather seal or that it requires a sealed TC to have any seal at all?

Confused.

craig_d · September 29, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that the IS versions of both apertures are weather sealed "but" they require a "sealed" front filter to complete the sealing system.

Are you sure about that? I know the 17-40 f/4 L requires a front filter because the front element moves. I didn't think the 70-200 models had this requirement. (I generally keep a B+W MRC UV filter on all my lenses anyway.)

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that the f4 IS version is a more advanced IS than the f2.8 IS.

It should be. It's a significantly newer lens.

ziggy53 wrote:

The IS versions have the best apertures with more leaves and the leaves are curved for better bokeh.

Not quite true. All the 70-200 models have eight blades, but as you say, the IS versions have curved blades.

ziggy53 wrote:

If I could only afford one version it would be the f2.8. I am that pleased with it in almost any lighting condition. I don't know if I would consider the IS f2.8 or not. A lot of folks truly believe that the f2.8 IS is the best of the family of Canon 70-200mm zoom lenses.

I have the f/2.8 IS version and I have no complaints. It is a big, heavy beast, but IS can be disabled when it's not needed. It takes amazingly clear pictures. I haven't actually used the non-IS or f/4 versions, but I find it hard to imagine that their IQ could possibly be so much better that it would be worth giving up f/2.8 capability or IS. I do most of my shooting hand-held, so IS is worth a lot to me.

One thing that people often do not realize about Canon's four 70-200 models is that they are all rather different in design. It isn't just f/4 vs f/2.8 and IS or no IS. No two of them even have the same number of optical elements! They also came out several years apart. The non-IS versions date back to 1995 (f/2.8) and 1999 (f/4); the IS versions came out in 2001 (f/2.8) and 2006 (f/4). So it's not like buying yourself a new car and having a choice of whether to add keyless entry or a sunroof as options. These are four distinct products that happen to address the same basic need (for a 70-200 lens) in different ways.

Another difference worth noting for anyone trying to choose between these lenses is that the f/2.8 models take 77mm filters while the f/4 models take 67mm. While I don't suggest making a $500-$1000 decision purely on the basis of the cost of a few filters, I do find it convenient that I currently need only three sizes of filters for my entire lens collection, without even needing a step-up adapter.

ziggy53 · September 29, 2009

craig_d wrote:

Are you sure about that? I know the 17-40 f/4 L requires a front filter because the front element moves. I didn't think the 70-200 models had this requirement. (I generally keep a B+W MRC UV filter on all my lenses anyway.)

I'm pretty sure but not absolutely sure. According to NK Guy, who is pretty good about this sort of thing:

"Note also that weather-resistant zoom lenses do not have sealed glass ends - you need to put a filter on these lenses to seal out the far (non camera) end."

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

craig_d wrote:

It should be. It's a significantly newer lens.

Yes, the f4 versions are the newer lenses. I think the f4 IS has 1 stop more stabilization and tripod detection.

craig_d wrote:

Not quite true. All the 70-200 models have eight blades, but as you say, the IS versions have curved blades.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking that my 70-200mm, f2.8 (non-IS) was only 7 blades.

ziggy53 · September 29, 2009

Village Idiot wrote:

Why? They have the sealing gaskets on the rear of the lens. Are you just stating that if it's used with a TC it has to be a sealed TC to keep the weather seal or that it requires a sealed TC to have any seal at all?

Confused.

I should have explained more completely. If you use a Canon MKII teleconverter with a weather sealed lens, the rear will be weather sealed to the camera. If you use an original teleconverter or some of the third-party converters, you will lack a weather seal to the body (because they have no rear seal.)

Village Idiot · September 29, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I should have explained more completely. If you use a Canon MKII teleconverter with a weather sealed lens, the rear will be weather sealed to the camera. If you use an original teleconverter or some of the third-party converters, you will lack a weather seal to the body (because they have no rear seal.)

All clear now.

Eddy · September 30, 2009

woow hard to to pick 2 very good lens.. the Price gap is so wide actually in Canadian Dollars around 1000.00 more with all the taxes..for the 70-200 2.8 IS USM..I admire the 70-200 f4 for weight and easy handling ..They both have their true qualities...one more day to think about it.

AlbertZeroK · September 30, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

The f4 is slightly sharper at f4 than the f2.8 at f4, but only slightly. The f2.8 is slightly faster to focus, except in low light where it is noticeably faster to focus (especially on the 1D camera body). Both are very fast and accurate in good light on any Canon body.

Do you think the AF assist light on the ST-E2 would help with low light AF, or by using a 70-200, is it likely that the object is too far out of reach for the AF Assist IR beams?

Scott_Quier · October 1, 2009

AlbertZeroK wrote:

Do you think the AF assist light on the ST-E2 would help with low light AF, or by using a 70-200, is it likely that the object is too far out of reach for the AF Assist IR beams?

If you are close enough to your subject that the ST-E2 actually illuminates the subject, then the focus assist light can only help - pretty axiomatic.

How far you are from your subject with the 70-200 is entirely a question of photographer preference. On a FF (and even on a cropper), the shorter end would make a beautiful portrait lens. Even at the longer end, you could be as close as part way across a crowed room, in which case the ST-E2 would still be of benefit.

ziggy53 · October 1, 2009

AlbertZeroK wrote:

Do you think the AF assist light on the ST-E2 would help with low light AF, or by using a 70-200, is it likely that the object is too far out of reach for the AF Assist IR beams?

The focus assist light of the ST-E2 is a projected image beam, reasonably well collimated. As such it has pretty good reach. If the subject is light colored I suspect that the focus assist will help for some distance. If the subject is dark, as in a black tuxedo, you might have less range.

I have had pretty good luck with a Sigma flash with focus assist and the 70-200mm, f2.8L indoors, and the Sigma assist light is not as bright as the Canon assist light, so I think you would gain a benefit to be sure, but it's not perfect.

The best situation is a focus assist light and a Canon 1D series camera as its AF is at least twice as sensitive as the subordinate cameras, as well as the AF working against any edge.

canon 70-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f4

Comments