# Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II



## DavidM (Nov 28, 2011)

I am currently looking at purchasing either the 70/200mm f/4 IS or 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II lens. I need some help in deciding the following:

1. my budget is tight and the f/2.8 would be a big stretch for my budget
2. I work as a wedding/events photographer indoor and outdoor

I heard that the f/2.8 is really heavy and not easy to carry around in that case it put me off a bit buying it as there's over $1000 difference between the 2 lenses. Basically the f/4 would be a lot more affordable for me but with a lot of effort I could purchase the f/2.8. 

I also don't want to look back and say, "why didn't I spend a bit more and get the f/2.8 version" which has been rated one of the best lenses and kick myself because I didn't invest a bit more in my collection of glass which lasts me a life time. At the same time the reviews on b&h website about the f/4 have been incredible... some people even saying that they had both and sold the f/2.8 because it was too heavy etc.

Your practical help and opinion would be appreciated!


----------



## pwp (Nov 28, 2011)

Hi David,

There's a current thread that will probably be completely relevant for you...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2232.msg48232/topicseen.html#new

and this one...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2230.0.html

Paul Wright


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 28, 2011)

I used to own the 70-200/4 IS and sold it to buy the 70-200/2.8 II. I briefly had both of them and did a few comparisons. The 2.8 II is a bit sharper but both are very sharp lenses. The main difference is the 2.8. Given that you are a wedding photographer, however, I would think the 2.8 would be worth it. The bokeh on his lens is wonderful and there is a big difference between 2.8 and F4.


----------



## terrellcwoods (Nov 28, 2011)

You've sort of answered your own question. Indoor wedding photographer. In all practicality you will need that 2.8 in the low light situations/no flash constraints sometimes imposed on you guys. Outdoor shooting and controllable light the 4 is awesome. I have never used the 2.8 non IS..maybe that's an option depending on what rig you shoot with and how it handles the higher ISO settings


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 28, 2011)

I'm only an amateur but have done a few weddings, I've got a few tight-wad friends that like my beer / wine / food / wedding present payment plan :. Anyway I've got a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and a good many of the best shots have been taken at f/2.8 for the best bokeh. I use a crop so you'd get a narrower field with full-frame for the same composition, but having said that there are a few shots where I would have liked a bit more. 

Are you using a crop or FF? For crop I'd say you'll definitely want the 2.8, for FF maybe f/4 would do the job, but then you'd have to consider the difference in AF speed when the light is not so good. They're not a light lens but I find it well balanced with a 7D with a grip. I suffer from a bit of arthritis and joint problems but don't find it too bad, for something like a wedding where the action is fairly slow moving but over a longer period I just zoom and then brace with my elbow while using AF / shooting.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 28, 2011)

If you have plenty of flash then the F/4 will be fine. At weddings I always use 2 flash lighting, indoors and outside. I find that a 24-105 on the 5DII is the ideal lens in those circumstances.

It does depend on the space at the location


----------



## pwp (Nov 28, 2011)

Either lens will do the job for you and probably be completely satisfying, though for somewhat different reasons.
But the fact you have said weddings is where you'll be setting this lens to work, F/2.8 and IS is a totally compelling combination. You may growl about the weight of the f/2.8 from time to time, but you'll never find fault with the performance and flexibility.

As I suggested in another similar thread, do a search on this list and see if you can find a single case of buyers regret from anyone who has bought a 70-200 f/2.8 isII. 

Paul Wright


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 28, 2011)

70-200/2.8

Easy question. If you make your living/good amount of money from photography pay for the better lens. The quality of the images will probably get you an extra job or two and pay for itself.

You didn't say your camera situation; if it's a crop camera like the 7d or 60d did you try a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4. Because 116mm (70*1.6) is really tight indoors and when that is as wide as you get that will be interesting.

I suggest a two camera setup one with an ultra fast prime Crop - Sigma 30/1.4 & FF - 50/1.4 or faster. The other with a 2.8 zoom lens depending on preference and camera anywhere between a 17-55(crop only), 24-70, or 70-200.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 28, 2011)

pwp said:


> Either lens will do the job for you and probably be completely satisfying, though for somewhat different reasons.
> But the fact you have said weddings is where you'll be setting this lens to work, F/2.8 and IS is a totally compelling combination. You may growl about the weight of the f/2.8 from time to time, but you'll never find fault with the performance and flexibility.
> 
> As I suggested in another similar thread, do a search on this list and see if you can find a single case of buyers regret from anyone who has bought a 70-200 f/2.8 isII.
> ...



My wife has recently done some jobs which involved shooting for an entire week with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. She had stiff shoulders on the first day, but would not consider taking the f/4 even though we have both. I believe for weddings you would find the f/2.8 almost a must - the f/4 may not collect enough light to get some shots.
I have to admit for daytime outdoor "walkabout" type shooting, the f/4 is more than adequate.

I doubt you will find cases of buyers remorse with either lens, but I think you will find a lot of people who started with the f/4 IS, and then bought the f/2.8 IS II, and then have kept both! (That said, we may consider replacing the f/4 with a 70-300.)


----------



## Steve Campbell (Nov 28, 2011)

These are two different lenses with the same focal range really. For indoor work that you are getting paid for, the 2.8 is the way to go. That being said, it weighs twice as much and costs twice as much. I have rented the 2.8 II and own a f4. Both are very sharp and very useful lenses on both full frame and crop. On full frame it's a better everyday lens. The f4 is lighter, smaller, more compact. The f2.8 is more of a profesional piece of kit but it comes at a price in dollars and weight. But if you need 2.8..........


----------



## Isaac (Nov 28, 2011)

Keeping in mind that you are a wedding photographer and lighting at these types of events are normally low, I'd say go with the 70/200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes it's heavier but it's not as heavy and terrible as people make it out to be. 

Everyone I know who has it says that the quality is amazing. When investing in glass remember that it's with you forever and that your 70/200 f/2.8 may be used on your 5D2, 5D3 all the way through to 5D10 and onwards ;D

Happy decision making and enjoy!


----------



## adventurer (Nov 28, 2011)

I currently own the 70-200/2.8 L IS II and previously owned the 70-200/4 L IS.

I have to say that both are very sharp lenses. The IQ on the 2.8 is certainly excellent but something I am shocked about is that with a 2X extender, the autofocus is far SLOWER on the F2.8 than on the F4. I often shoot in low light and I miss my old F4's faster autofocusing. In very low light though, both fail to autofocus on my 1D IV.

Having had the F2.8 for a couple of months now I'm not sure there's much there to justify the extra cost and weight over the F4, only that one could autofocus with it using a 2X extender on a non pro body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2011)

DavidM said:


> 2. I work as a wedding/events photographer *indoor*



It's been said already, but +1. Indoor events means you want f/2.8. 



adventurer said:


> I have to say that both are very sharp lenses. The IQ on the 2.8 is certainly excellent but something I am shocked about is that with a 2X extender, the autofocus is far SLOWER on the F2.8 than on the F4.



That's intentional. Canon slows down the AF by 25% with a 1.4x TC and by 50% with a 2x TC, to increase focus accuracy.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 28, 2011)

I do indoor weddings and even on the 5DII the 24-105 is far better as the 70-200 restricts you to mostly head and shoulders shots.

That said the 70-200F2.8 II is a fabulous lens on the 5DII - the bokeh is a dream


----------



## K-amps (Nov 28, 2011)

+1 to all these guys giving good advice.

It usually starts with the budget constraints making you rationalize about getting the f4 instead, but as with others, I had the F4, but now am a happy owner of the f2.8 mk.II. It just makes some pictures out out alive, it is almost magical... I cannot explain it.... the word "dreamy" comes to mind perhaps... 

You should not be comparing the 2 lenses based on cold hard facts of F4 vs F2.8 etc ... the f2.8 mk.II has something special... it cannot be quantified... It is heavy yes... but it should not matter unless you have health issues... you will build the required muscles quickly 

Wait for Dec 6th? and if you are lucky, Canon announces the 24-70 f2.8 IS or mk.II without IS... if not the 24-105 f4 IS is a great lens for wider shots..


----------



## DavidM (Nov 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> DavidM said:
> 
> 
> > 2. I work as a wedding/events photographer *indoor*
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2011)

DavidM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DavidM said:
> ...



Just that at least 3 posts before mine stated for indoor events the extra stop of the f/2.8 is important/necessary.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 28, 2011)

can someone please explain (in detail) the weight factor of the f/2.8?

it looks like I am going to probably purchase the f/2.8 based on all of your help (thanks) however I am nervous about carrying this very heavy lens around. 

please advise!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2011)

The f/4L IS is 29 oz, the f2.8L non-IS is 51 oz, and the f/2.8L IS II is 60 oz. Those are in-use values, heavier than Canon specs because the f/4 includes the hood and the f/2.8's include good and tripod collar.


----------



## TW (Nov 28, 2011)

Posts like this reek of laziness. I say do your own homework, give it some thought, then make up your own mind, instead of asking everyone else to do it for you.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 28, 2011)

TW said:


> Posts like this reek of laziness. I say do your own homework, give it some thought, then make up your own mind, instead of asking everyone else to do it for you.



Sorry TW, if you don't like it then don't read this topic or leave the forum. I can't ask the advice from CanonRumors users in which many know more than sales reps? It's posts like yours that reek irritation and frustration at the lack of brain used in posting a message like yours. Why? Because the very fact that I am doing research which lens to buy means that I am not "lazy" rather I'm doing all my homework before "just buying" a product. 

Personally I'd like to thank all of you who are helping me in my decision. I mean, TW thinks there's not much difference between $1100 and $2000 however for some of us, we like to use our brain and think before we buy.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 28, 2011)

I am with DavidM. I have spend a lot of time reading reviews, researching, etc., and a lot of times it comes down to what people experience in real life that matter. Now in this case I think it comes down to what you can afford, at least for me, I can't see any reason other than weight where one would take the F4 IS. To some weight matters. But I know in my thread, the personal experiences helped big time and did shift me away to what I was thinking research wise... So I am very appreciative people took the time to chime in


----------



## branden (Nov 28, 2011)

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is not an appropriate lens for indoor events shooting. (Use to own this, ended up selling it because it was too awkward -- there was always a better lens for any situation.)

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII is a better option, but not one I would take. (Rented this once -- weight and cost were not justified.)

When shooting indoor weddings, for my long lens I use a 135mm f/2L.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 28, 2011)

When we consider the Human eye has has equivalent fstop range of f3.2 to f8.3 (assuming incoming light rays hitting the retina); are we surprised when the 70-200 f2.8 can give us very "eye pleasing" results...


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 29, 2011)

For indoor weddings without a flash, even F2 and ISO 3200 is not enough many times, so don't base your purchase decision on that mere 1 stop of difference. If you use a flash then the difference doesn't matter anyway.

The F2.8 is good outside, with a far background, with good lighting, so that you can create a nicely blurred background. Indoors, you either need a flash or a sub-F2 lens.


----------



## willrobb (Nov 29, 2011)

Hi David,

I think you won't regret spending a little more on the 70-200m f2.8L. It's very well built, will last you a long time and the f2.8 will be of great value in the low light.

At weddings/indoor events you won't be using it much for a walkabout to capture the action with (primes or medium range zoom will be good), but when someone is giving a speech and you need to get in close, you'll love the 70-200mm f2.8L. Here are some shots at ISO 100-3200 shot with this lens on a 7D and 5DmkII recently.

1st, 7D ISO 100 f5.6
2nd 5DmkII ISO 1000 f2.8
3rd 7D ISO 3200 f2.8
4th 5DmkII ISO 3200 f2.8
2nd


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 29, 2011)

Not what was asked for - but I've been astonished to see the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS going for far less than the $3100 it officially lists for - down to $2500 or so in some cases. If you need extra reach, look that up. On the downside, however, it is heavy and edge sharpness has been criticized (although it seems perfectly sharp throughout to me in actual use).


----------



## K-amps (Nov 29, 2011)

How is this for motivation: B&H has it for $1974 now till Dec 2nd !! ;D


----------



## JR (Dec 30, 2011)

Hi David,

sorry I joined this party late! The voting seem to be closed on your pole but like many others before me here I would vote for the 2.8 version. I totally understand your question because I asked myself that same question before buying the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II myself. Since you do some indoor shooting and wedding gigs, for sure the f2.8 will come in very handy for you. 

Best of luck in your purchase and I hope you make lots of money out of those pictures you will take with your chosen lenses!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

DavidM said:


> can someone please explain (in detail) the weight factor of the f/2.8?
> 
> it looks like I am going to probably purchase the f/2.8 based on all of your help (thanks) however I am nervous about carrying this very heavy lens around.
> 
> please advise!



its fine, if you want the quality then you just gotta get used to it


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 30, 2011)

scrappydog said:


> The f/2.8 is a beast in size and weight compared to the f/4. I can hand-hold the f/4 all day, no problem. I couldn't fathom doing that with the f/2.8. If you use a tripod, the f/4 does not come with a collar but it really needs one to balance the camera if taking active photos. For example, I took a bunch of shots of big cats at the zoo with the f/4 without a collar and I found myself constantly using my left hand to balance the lens. I was exhausted afterward.
> 
> The f/4 is super sharp. I have yet to put the f/2.8 through its paces, so I cannot comment on its use in the field.



I dont find the f/2.8 very heavy and am quite comfortable with it on a 1D4 all day.

Suggest you use the rifle holding position with your left elbow resting against your chest. This is a very stable technique and takes little energy.

I would suggest using 2 flash, get the iso down to a max of 400, and on a crop use the 24-105 for the majority of photos. Indoors if space is tight then flash + a wide zoom will be perfect.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> scrappydog said:
> 
> 
> > The f/2.8 is a beast in size and weight compared to the f/4. I can hand-hold the f/4 all day, no problem. I couldn't fathom doing that with the f/2.8. If you use a tripod, the f/4 does not come with a collar but it really needs one to balance the camera if taking active photos. For example, I took a bunch of shots of big cats at the zoo with the f/4 without a collar and I found myself constantly using my left hand to balance the lens. I was exhausted afterward.
> ...


I agree with this technique, I also have taken the tripod foot off mine and have the lens just behind the focus ring rest on the heal of my left hand then i have easy access to the focus ring with my left hand fingers without disturbing the shot if i'm manually focusing.
And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 30, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I dont find the f/2.8 very heavy and am quite comfortable with it on a 1D4 all day.
> ...



+1 - precisely - great position for panning too


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 30, 2011)

The single most important lens in my armory. 

I bet if you bought five, you could sell them in 8 months and make a little money. (warning: past performance may not be indicative of future results).


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> The single most important lens in my armory.
> 
> I bet if you bought five, you could sell them in 8 months and make a little money. (warning: past performance may not be indicative of future results).


 LOL

i know! I paid $2800 for my 2 copies  but everything is more expensive here in aus


----------



## Jim K (Dec 30, 2011)

I own and love the f/4 IS but I shoot outdoors. Since you are working indoors you will really need the f/2.8.

My 100-400 is a few ounces lighter than the f/2.8 II and I find that if I am holding it up for a while, waiting for a bird to give me the right head angle, it does get heavy. But that's why my second white lens was the f/4.

Considering the cost of the f/2.8 II you might be happier if you rented it for a few days to form your own opinion of how it is to work with.


----------



## gmrza (Dec 30, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> I agree with this technique, I also have taken the tripod foot off mine and have the lens just behind the focus ring rest on the heal of my left hand then i have easy access to the focus ring with my left hand fingers without disturbing the shot if i'm manually focusing.
> And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.



I agree on removing the tripod mount. For hand-held shooting my wife and I both find it more comfortable without.

I think also that the weight should not be too much of a concern. Even my wife (who used to complain bitterly about heavy cameras) is happy to shoot all day with the f/2.8.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

Jim K said:


> I own and love the f/4 IS but I shoot outdoors. Since you are working indoors you will really need the f/2.8.
> 
> My 100-400 is a few ounces lighter than the f/2.8 II and I find that if I am holding it up for a while, waiting for a bird to give me the right head angle, it does get heavy. But that's why my second white lens was the f/4.
> 
> Considering the cost of the f/2.8 II you might be happier if you rented it for a few days to form your own opinion of how it is to work with.


I have the 28-300 similar style and while on paper its not alot heavier than the 70-200 it felt significantly heavier particularly when at full extension because all that weight is so much further forward of the camera putting more downward force on your supporting arm. the 70-200 feels like a featherweight by comparison


----------



## daveheinzel (Dec 30, 2011)

You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.

Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

daveheinzel said:


> You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.
> 
> Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.



I would have cried like a little girl :'(


----------



## daveheinzel (Dec 30, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> daveheinzel said:
> 
> 
> > You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.
> ...



The world did seem to stop when it happened. I had the lens in my camera bag, which was opened and sitting 'safely' on a table. I was demoing my camera to some high school students, and a student, trying to be helpful, picked up my bag and was going to bring it to me for some unknown reason. When the lens fell... the thud it made was unreal. Everyone kind of froze, and I didn't know how to react. But I tried to not make him feel too awful. Maybe just a little though.  I tested the lens exhaustively as soon as I was alone, sure something was going to be wrong. I couldn't find anything. It landed on the edge of the front element, in a way that the lens hood, on in reverse for storage, didn't seem to cushion the blow. Probably way more information than any wanted to know, but oh well.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 30, 2011)

First off, get the 2.8 you'll love it, it is easily my favourite lens. While I nicknamed mine the beast like many others, weight wise I don't find it too bad at all, I can shoot hand-held all day without problem. I've also carried it all day walking around with ease and comfort; I use a BlackRapid RS7 strap and mount it to the tripod ring so it balances nicely when I carry it.



wickidwombat said:


> And following the rifle theme shoot the camera like you would shoot a rifle, steady, aim, exhale and halfway through exhaling squeaze the trigger leaving your finger depressed until well after the shot is off, dont snatch at the button beacuse it will introduce shake.



Great analogy, very true.


----------



## Jim K (Dec 30, 2011)

I also carry my 100-400 with a BlackRapid RS7. It hangs horizontally on my hip with the strap attached to the tripod ring. This seems to be the way with the less than SuperTele lenses.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 30, 2011)

Jim K said:


> I also carry my 100-400 with a BlackRapid RS7. It hangs horizontally on my hip with the strap attached to the tripod ring. This seems to be the way with the less than SuperTele lenses.



I hang the 1D4 + 400F/2.8 off my Black Rapid DR1 with a second body with the 70-200 f/2.8II off the second strap


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 30, 2011)

You need the 2.8, and an assistant to carry it.  Have to agree with the others. For weddings, the 2.8 is way to go. 

If you need to save, go sigma, or go version I, or no IS.


----------



## Jim K (Jan 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Jim K said:
> 
> 
> > I also carry my 100-400 with a BlackRapid RS7. It hangs horizontally on my hip with the strap attached to the tripod ring. This seems to be the way with the less than SuperTele lenses.
> ...



Good thing you have the 70-200 2.8II on the other side when carrying the 1D4 & 400 f/2.8II. The 400 f/2.8 alone would make you tilt to that side. ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 3, 2012)

Jim K said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Jim K said:
> ...



If I loosen the strap off I can use the 400 as a walking stick ;D ;D ;D


----------



## CanonFanNum1 (Jan 3, 2012)

Nothing new to add here. Just saying I too recently moved from F/4 IS to F/2.8 IS II. Both are great, F/2.8 is worth the price IMO.

I loved the F/4 the whole time I had it (3 years) because of amazing IQ, price and lightness. That will not change.

I now love the F/2.8 IS II because of the incredible "it factor" from the bokeh at 200mm and F/2.8. Do I wish it was lighter? Of course. But the F/2.8 is so worth it.

Simply put... the 70-200 F2.8 IS II is probably the single best lens in the zoom telephoto category hands-down, and a contender for best overall. My opinion of course.

If I had infinite money and infinite storage I would have both. If you can spring to $2K... get the F/2.8 (price is down currently).


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 3, 2012)

CanonFanNum1 said:


> Nothing new to add here. Just saying I too recently moved from F/4 IS to F/2.8 IS II. Both are great, F/2.8 is worth the price IMO.
> 
> I loved the F/4 the whole time I had it (3 years) because of amazing IQ, price and lightness. That will not change.
> 
> ...



+1 f/2.8 is particularly good on the 5DII


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 3, 2012)

I did upgrade from F4 to F2.8 about a year ago and have never regretted it. For indoor shots the F2.8 is definitely the lens you want to buy.


----------

