Canon 70-200 IS, f2.8 or f4?

JimM · December 14, 2008

Okay, so I am ready to bite the bullet and but this amazing lens. My question, is the added weight of the 2.8 worth it? Obviously I can save like $500 to going with the f4, but my major concern is how heavy the 2.8 is.

Anyone experience both? Is the f4 as sharp? Any thoughts much appreciated!

JimM · December 14, 2008

I did just check out this thread with a similar question, http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=111103 and it has me leaning toward the f4.

Thoughts?

JimM · December 14, 2008

I have done some additional research and learned that the f4 version does not come with a tripod ring and B&H wants $150 for the ring, which means that basically the 2.8 is $350ish more (not as big of a jump as I thought).

So now it really comes down to weight.

f2.8 is 3.2 lb without tripod collar
f4 is 1.7lb without tripod collar

I have used the f2.8 many times, but always found it to be heavy. I have a 300mm f/4 IS that is feels much lighter than the f2.8. The 300m checks in at 2.6lb according to B&H. Also makes me think I could probably use the 300mm's tripod ring if I wanted to, since I probably would not be shooting with both of these at the same time.

I have not used the 300mm in a year, so was actually considering selling it.

I have shared way too much now, haven't I? Typing this out for all to see I do think is helping me make my decision. So thanks for listening and any thoughts/comments still welcome.

Candid Arts · December 14, 2008

I'd say deal with the weight and get the f/2.8. That extra light and bokeh will come in handy. Wide is on your side (that was kinda stupid, but it was the only equivalent I could think of too a car engine saying there is [there's no replacement for displacement]). Get the 2.8 and a nicer camera strap. good to go.

ziggy53 · December 14, 2008

I have:

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

The f2.8 is nice when you are working indoors or in poorer light. I do believe it is faster to focus as well (slightly). The f2.8 also enables those cameras that support higher precision at f2.8.

The f4 is a great travel lens and a lot easier to shoot for long periods.

Both are similar quality at f4, although some say the f4 vesion is sharper. I don't see that myself.

Both also do pretty well with the Canon EF 1.4x teleconverter.

I bought the f2.8 first and I'm pretty glad I did. If I had to chose between the 2 lenses I would generally rather have the f2.8 with me.

Elaine · December 14, 2008

I debated and debated and I can now see value in having both...eventually!

I started with the f/4 L IS and I just love that lens. It's light, relatively compact, super sharp, the IS works great and I can't see parting with it now that I have it. Someday I'd like to get my hands on a 2.8 IS, but for now, I'm very happy with my f/4 IS.

JimM · December 14, 2008

I just spent about 20 minutes holding/shooting by hand with my 300mm f/4 IS and I think for now the lighter weight lens is the better way for me to go for now. I don't want to feel like I need to bring a tripod or mono pod with me to shoot a senior photo.

So I think I have it all figured out.

BTW, if you are curious about my driving factor to buy now, my son turns one on Thursday with his big party on Saturday. Having a mid zoom would be very beneficial for his party (so I'll call it a Christmas present to me). Besides, tax write-off in 2008 is better than one in 2009!!!

Thank you everyone for you thoughts!!!

JimM · December 14, 2008

, I think I lied in my last post. It doesn't look like my 300mm tripod ring will fit the 70-200 f4, so now I am annoyed that the ring costs $250. Makes me think I should just jump up to the 2.8 since it comes with the ring and if I find it too heavy, I can always sell it (as they seem to really hold their resale value). I think the tripod ring is important.

Candid Arts · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

, I think I lied in my last post. It doesn't look like my 300mm tripod ring will fit the 70-200 f4, so now I am annoyed that the ring costs $250. Makes me think I should just jump up to the 2.8 since it comes with the ring and if I find it too heavy, I can always sell it (as they seem to really hold their resale value). I think the tripod ring is important.

Got this from your signature "Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 200mm,f2.8L >Canon 300mm f4 L IS"

I"m guessing you already picked it up?

I'm SO jealous! I want this lens so bad. But all my money in my account is student loan for rent and food...:-/...but I'm still debating getting it :-P. You are lucky, that is one of (if not) the most highly regarded lens like ever made. You will not be disappointed. And if it's too heavy, I got $100 that will take it off your hands for ya...;-)

JimM · December 14, 2008

Nope, that is the non-zoom, non-IS version. That is a great lens as it is super light and doesn't stick out. I would recommend it. But having no zoom is a severe limitation that I am trying to rectify.
Will be ordering one of them today so I can second-day it to me.

Candid Arts wrote:

Got this from your signature "Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 200mm,f2.8L >Canon 300mm f4 L IS"

I"m guessing you already picked it up?

I'm SO jealous! I want this lens so bad. But all my money in my account is student loan for rent and food...:-/...but I'm still debating getting it :-P. You are lucky, that is one of (if not) the most highly regarded lens like ever made. You will not be disappointed. And if it's too heavy, I got $100 that will take it off your hands for ya...;-)

Candid Arts · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

Nope, that is the non-zoom, non-IS version. That is a great lens as it is super light and doesn't stick out. I would recommend it. But having no zoom is a severe limitation that I am trying to rectify.
Will be ordering one of them today so I can second-day it to me.

Gotchya, yeah I missed that small detail... Well good luck with it, I've shot with it a bit. SOOO nice. Jealous. Very jealous.

gembobs · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

, I think I lied in my last post. It doesn't look like my 300mm tripod ring will fit the 70-200 f4, so now I am annoyed that the ring costs $250. Makes me think I should just jump up to the 2.8 since it comes with the ring and if I find it too heavy, I can always sell it (as they seem to really hold their resale value). I think the tripod ring is important.

I believe the tripod rings on ebay cost less and do the job as well. However, I have never used one (I don't own one of these lenses), this is just what I have read in the past.

Hope that helps!

JimM · December 14, 2008

Okay, order placed with B&H for the 2.8 IS, with 2nd day air for only another $10, so it should be delivered on Wednesday!!!

The ring helped with the decision, as did Ziggy's thoughts.

My other thought was if I like it enough, I can add a 1.4x TC to it and still have a 300mm f4 so I can sell my 300mm and I don't really shoot Macro, so I can sell my 100mm Macro, lighten my load and almost pay for the lens.

Thanks for all your help!!!

Candid Arts · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

so I can sell my 100mm Macro, lighten my load and almost pay for the lens.

If this is the case...If I can sell my 60mm Macro, I'm looking at getting the 100mm macro. So if yours is in great enough condition, and new enough, and at a good enough price...I might take that off your hands if you decide to sell...

ziggy53 · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

...

My other thought was if I like it enough, I can add a 1.4x TC to it and still have a 300mm f4 so I can sell my 300mm ...

Be sure to test the 70-200 + TC combination "before" you sell the 300mm prime that you have. The Canon EF 300mm, f/4 L IS USM is a wonderful prime lens and easily beats the 70-200 + TC for many applications.

JimM · December 14, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Be sure to test the 70-200 + TC combination "before" you sell the 300mm prime that you have. The Canon EF 300mm, f/4 L IS USM is a wonderful prime lens and easily beats the 70-200 + TC for many applications.

Certainly will test. Not sure how many sports I'll be shooting in the next couple of years that will require the 300mm, as I haven't used it since the birth of my son (now a year old).

Thanks!

JimM · December 14, 2008

Candid Arts wrote:

If this is the case...If I can sell my 60mm Macro, I'm looking at getting the 100mm macro. So if yours is in great enough condition, and new enough, and at a good enough price...I might take that off your hands if you decide to sell...

I have a friend that might want the lens, but if not, I bet we can work something out. I don't know anything about the 60mm Macro, maybe a trade could be worked out too? I'll let you know after I test the 70-200 and talk to my friend.

Candid Arts · December 14, 2008

JimM wrote:

I have a friend that might want the lens, but if not, I bet we can work something out. I don't know anything about the 60mm Macro, maybe a trade could be worked out too? I'll let you know after I test the 70-200 and talk to my friend.

Awesome. That'd be great. Thanks!

dlplumer · December 14, 2008

I have the 70-200 f/4 and the 300 f/4. You do not need a collar for the the 70-200 F/4. Both are excellent and light.

JimM · December 22, 2008

I thought I would post a follow up. The lens came last week in perfect condition and in the 2 days of shipping I paid for (thanks B&H!). What an amazing lens! It is heavy, but my arms will get stronger. The restaurant was very dark, so I was shooting at ISO 3200. The f4 would have given me blur.

The 2.8 was the way to go. Thank you everyone for your help and advice!

ziggy53 · December 22, 2008

JimM wrote:

I thought I would post a follow up. The lens came last week in perfect condition and in the 2 days of shipping I paid for (thanks B&H!). What an amazing lens! It is heavy, but my arms will get stronger. The restaurant was very dark, so I was shooting at ISO 3200. The f4 would have given me blur.

The 2.8 was the way to go. Thank you everyone for your help and advice!

Congratulations on the new lens.

Shima · December 22, 2008

JimM wrote:

I thought I would post a follow up. The lens came last week in perfect condition and in the 2 days of shipping I paid for (thanks B&H!). What an amazing lens! It is heavy, but my arms will get stronger. The restaurant was very dark, so I was shooting at ISO 3200. The f4 would have given me blur.

The 2.8 was the way to go. Thank you everyone for your help and advice!

I love the 70-200 f2.8/L IS USM that you just picked up, congrats on joining the club! It may be a beast for it's weight, but it works great!

JimM · December 22, 2008

Thanks guys!

Canon 70-200 IS, f2.8 or f4?

Comments