Canon, 2.8L versus 4.0L

mercphoto

The Canon 70-200mm -- two versions. 2.8L and 4.0L. Big difference in price. For the type of shots I take with a lens like that I almost never shoot under f/8. So is it worth getting the faster lens? Is there any image quality difference?

Thanks, Bill.

DavidTO

I have the f4 on loan from a friend who upgraded to the 2.8 IS L glass.

I may buy it from her.

Just wanted to point out that the other big diff besides price is weight, and the Image Stabilization. The f4 is already pretty big. The 2.8 is heavier. BUT it has IS.

mercphoto

Thanks
Thanks for the reply. The weight/size might push me to the 4.0L. I just bought a 24-70 2.8L which I will return. Partly it is too large and heavy. Partly I'm finding I'm not good at the shots I want that lens for. Will buy a cheaper, smaller 50mm 1.4 prime instead. That lens I can justify.

And for IS, not sure I want it. I have IS on my 75-300. Almost never use it. I find I am much better at, and enjoy much more, action shots, and I don't like using IS for that. But I've used the 70-200 4.0L before, and it does take better shots than my 75-300. And I'm already starting to sell the action shots I take with that lens. So, may be worth the upgrade.

DavidTO

Have you checked out the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com/ ? They can be very helpful. Basic registration is free, I believe.

fish

I have the f4L and love it. 1/3 the price (and weight) of the f2.8 and you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. I don't miss the speed difference and I certainly don't miss the weight. IS would be nice, but bumping it up to ISO400 works pretty well. It's an outstanding portrait lens, btw. Shooting at f4 you blur the background beautifully. It also works nicely with a 1.4x multiplier.

Andy

i just sold my 70-200L f/2.8 i.s. ... i loved the lens, but i dont' get that much use out of it. i'm getting in it's place the 16-35L f/2.8

;-)

wxwax

I gotta say I love the 70-200 2.8 IS. Cures my shakes and great blur.