# 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?



## bfmawhinney (May 17, 2012)

Refurbished, the 70-200 2.8L costs almost exactly the same as the 70-200 4L IS. I currently have the 70-200 on a 550D body, and am expecting to go FF and am interested in upgrading this lens to improve IQ. Don't have the extra grand to get the 2.8L IS. Any opinions on IQ, build quality, handling, etc.?


----------



## iaind (May 17, 2012)

Do you need f2.8 and are happy carrying the extra weight?




Decision made!


----------



## preppyak (May 17, 2012)

iaind said:


> Do you need f2.8 and are happy carrying the extra weight?


Yep, I'd say look at your pictures right now. Are a lot of them shot at f/2.8? Or, are a lot of them shot at lower shutter speeds (where IS would help)? Do you need to freeze subjects a lot (f/2.8 means faster shutter speed)? And, do you shoot a lot of the pictures at one end or the other (70mm, 200mm, etc)?

Just going from the T2i to a FF body will improve your light handling, so you might not need f/2.8 as much. Going to FF you'll lose some of the reach of the lens, but, also gain some on the wide end. If you use it at 70-135 a lot, you'll like that, if you use it at 200mm a lot, you might find you want more reach. In that case, there'd be some other things to consider.


----------



## bp (May 17, 2012)

The f4 IS is one of the sharpest canon has made. Sharper than the 2.8 (non-IS and IS mk1 - not sharper than the IS mk2, they're about equal). Look at the typical lighting you expect to shoot under. If it'll usually be brightly lit, I'd go for the f4 IS and enjoy the razor sharp IQ. If you find yourself often in low light, the 2.8 may be more valuable


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2012)

If you need to stop action in low light or will be using it for portraits, get the f/2.8. Else, I'd say the f/4 IS is the better choice.


----------



## llcanon (May 18, 2012)

I'd go with the 2.8 mk II if you don't mind the price and weight. Then you won't have those situations where you wish you had the faster one. Getting the best in class will stop you from blaming on the equipment. You won't regret it.


----------



## bkorcel (May 18, 2012)

Both are excellent lenses. However keep in mind the F4 IS has only 1 or 2 stops of IS correction. The 2.8L II has 4 stops!!! You are not only getting faster shutter speed at F2.8 but you can actually hand hold up to 4 stops less than that.

I've used both and now have the 2.8 II. It's by far the better lens technically (sharpness about the same). Plus you can use the 1.4 and 2X extenders with the 2.8 if needed and still have a very useable 300mm f/4 and 400mm f5.6.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 18, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Both are excellent lenses. However keep in mind the F4 IS has only 1 or 2 stops of IS correction. The 2.8L II has 4 stops!!! You are not only getting faster shutter speed at F2.8 but you can actually hand hold up to 4 stops less than that.
> 
> I've used both and now have the 2.8 II. It's by far the better lens technically (sharpness about the same). Plus you can use the 1.4 and 2X extenders with the 2.8 if needed and still have a very useable 300mm f/4 and 400mm f5.6.



Agreed. I had owned the F4, but if you have the funds definately go with the 2.8II. Fast and sharp.


----------



## heavybarrel (May 18, 2012)

If you are referring to the 70-200 f/2.8L without IS, I believe the f/4 is much better optically. Of course, the f/2.8 II is a better lens but it's going to be more than twice as much! I would just rent the f/4 and see how you like it. Or you can buy one off craigslist and turn around and sell it for the same price if you don't like it. I have the f/2.8 II on a FF but I still borrow my buddy's f/4 sometimes (he's always happy with that trade for the weekend lol) when I'm shooting in daylight. I feel it handles a lot better simply because it's smaller and much lighter. The best thing is to try it out and see what makes you happy before you blow a grand.


----------



## bfmawhinney (May 18, 2012)

This has been really helpful; thank you all. The typo at the top is that I currently have the 4L (non IS). With some of the comments about sharpness, I'm thinking the 4L IS is the upgrade of choice. I don't shoot indoor sports, and while low light is one of my favorite times to shoot, I'd rather have a faster prime for those occasions.

Gotta love the Canon refurb store...


----------



## Act444 (May 18, 2012)

I had the f4 IS. I since traded it in for the 2.8 IS II (since I was really pushing the ISO limit indoors with f4) and absolutely love it. Since you mentioned you don't do sports, you probably don't need the extra stop of the 2.8- instead, IS will come in handy (and would probably be much more useful than the extra stop to you). I think the IS version has better image quality, too.


----------



## ScottyP (May 18, 2012)

I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field... 
If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did. But I am an idiot. I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I do have the 2.8 II, but much of the time I stop it down to get a realistically workable depth of field...
> If you are sacrificing to buy this, you may want to go with the f/4, which is lighter, and which I am told is VERY sharp.
> Or buy the 2.8 MK 2, which I did. But I am an idiot. I caught it between Canon rebates and lost 300 dollars.



+1

I find it strange that people want fast lens for indoor work when shooting wide open the DOF becomes so shallow that only 1 eye is in focus unless the subject is absoloutely face on


----------



## aznable (May 18, 2012)

bfmawhinney said:


> Refurbished, the 70-200 2.8L costs almost exactly the same as the 70-200 4L IS. I currently have the 70-200 on a 550D body, and am expecting to go FF and am interested in upgrading this lens to improve IQ. Don't have the extra grand to get the 2.8L IS. Any opinions on IQ, build quality, handling, etc.?



the F4 IS is a bit sharper , has stabilization, is better sealed than the 2.8 and it weight the half; 

do you need 2.8? that's the question


----------



## DB (May 18, 2012)

Do you intend on shooting predominantly handheld? If so, then get the f4 IS version. I have it and take shots @ 1/15th of a second and they're still pretty sharp. Pros like David Stocklein us the smaller/lighter f4 L IS when shooting handheld (see video):

Canon EOS 7D - A day in life, featuring David Stoecklein - Introduction 1/9


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 18, 2012)

I have the 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS.

It's a fantastic lens, but here is my take:

Neither of the non-IS versions are weather sealed. But then neither is the 550D. Is this a biggie? It's not for me. I use a kata rain slicker when it's bad anyway (for my 550D and 7D)

Although you have the extra stop in terms of aperture exposure, I find the lens is at it's best from f4, especially towards the 200mm end. F2.8 is fine for video, I wouldn't pixel peep my stills at f2.8. Not that I pixel peep anyway. You have to weight this up against whether you use your current lens wide open or not. You may for example use your current lens at f5.6, I don't know.

The 70-200 f2.8 non-IS comes with a tripod collar. I generally use this lens on a tripod or monopod. It makes panning so much more easier, and goes some way to negating the IS feature of the alternatives.

One big performance boon is the effect of the max aperture on AF.

Even if you are shooting at f4 or f5.6 or whatever, the lens is wide open until you depress the shutter button.
That extra stop really brings Canon's AF to life. Now the 550D is quite basic AF, but you do have that centre cross AF point, which is extra sensitive with f2.8 lenses or faster.

If you were shooting sports or nature, and using AiServo, then that f2.8 could make a hell of a lot of difference to you. I used to use a 400D for shooting jetskis and speedway motorcycling. With the centre spot selected in AiServo mode I actually got some brilliantly sharp shots. The 550D is never going to compete with a 7D or 1D for AF performance, but if you want to get the most out of what you've got, that extra stop makes the difference.

In short I am really happy with my 70-200 f2.8L. If you shoot video, or sports etc then I think it is worth a punt. I know loads of folks rave about their f4's and particularly their f4 IS's, but I really wanted the AF benefit and extra aperture stop.

I wouldn't make this an issue about shutter speed, because higher ISO's are actually good if post-processed properly with the digic IV cameras, and besides, IS does not counteract subject motion blur, which is actually the real killer.

I would say that if you are looking at any of these lenses then get a monopod. It makes all the difference, not just for stability but panning.


----------



## DB (May 18, 2012)

Forgot to mention that various comparison tests between f4 IS and f2.8 non-IS show that the former is the sharpest in the centre @ 85mm, so if you're saying that you intend to go FF and if you're going to be shooting people (outdoors especially) then the smaller f4 IS has better IQ (easier to make a sharper lens with smaller aperture).


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 18, 2012)

the keeper rate of the 70-200 f/4 IS is very good. 1/30 in most cases is no problem (provided continues shooting used) and 1/15 is still decent. And IQ is simply something you won't miss again. Cheers!


----------

