# 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs f/4L IS



## Diverman (Feb 3, 2012)

I'd like to start off by saying that I've been a regular visitor to the site for about a year now, and I love the discussions I have seen on the forums. I really enjoy this site, and am excited to be a part of it.

I currently have a 60D with the 18-135 kit lens (which I got in March of last year), the 50 f/1.8 II, and also a 430 EXII flash. I love all of my gear right now, but wanted to add a higher quality telephoto zoom to my collection. I have been debating back and forth between the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM and the f/4L IS USM for quite some time. I am concerned about the weight of the 2.8, as everyone mentions that it can be a burden. I also thought that if I am going to spend $1200 at least, that I might regret not spending the extra $800 and getting the f/2.8 IS II over the f/4L IS, as the 2.8 is the best in its class.

I shoot a variety of things, but my favorite shots are almost all in the 70-135 range of my current set up. Low light is sometimes an issue. The 2.8 is an expensive lens, but I wanted to get some more opinions before making any decision (and also before the current rebate expires, as it is a good one!).

Thanks!


----------



## K-amps (Feb 3, 2012)

There's also the OOF blur to consider apart from speed. However cold hard analytics apart, there something special about the shots taken by the f2.8 mk.ii. They are creamy and easy on the eyes, while being sharp.

+1 to the 70-200 f/2.8 mk.II


----------



## Tijn (Feb 3, 2012)

I went for the 70-200 f/4L IS myself. The f/2.8L IS II is a bit sharper (and the F/4L IS already is really really sharp), lets in twice more light, is twice as heavy, and (in my country) twice as expensive. Since I didn't have the budget to spend twice the amount anyways, it was an easy choice for me. Regardless, since I'll want to possibly take it along on backpacking trips, the f/2.8 would have been much too heavy anyways.


----------



## BL (Feb 3, 2012)

if you find 2.8 is critical for what you want to shoot in low light, but find it cost prohibitive, i wouldn't rule out a used, but clean copy of the 70-200 2.8 IS mkI. 

it's performance is still exemplary, vs the 2nd generation, with which i find the biggest improvement is it's performance with 1.4x and 2x canon extenders among other things (e.g. updated IS, closer focussing distance, etc.)


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 3, 2012)

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS II may be the best zoom lens on the planet. It is very pricey however.

From what you said I'd go for the f2.8 over the f4. But I'd consider the f2.8 or the f2.8 IS MK I also. I believe the MK 1 is about half the price if you can find it.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 3, 2012)

Tijn said:


> I went for the 70-200 f/4L IS myself. The f/2.8L IS II is a bit sharper (and the F/4L IS already is really really sharp), lets in twice more light, is twice as heavy, and (in my country) twice as expensive. Since I didn't have the budget to spend twice the amount anyways, it was an easy choice for me. Regardless, since I'll want to possibly take it along on backpacking trips, the f/2.8 would have been much too heavy anyways.



I tested the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 mk.ii before buying. The f/4 was sharper. Don't short sell it.  it can hold it's own in sharpness.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 3, 2012)

If you can handle the additional weight and cost, go for the f2.8L IS, it's an amazing lens and my personal favourite. The f4L IS is very good value for money as well, I used it for almost a year before upgrading.

Here's a recent thread on the comparison of the two:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2917.0.html

Here's a recent thread comparing their AF speed:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2952.0.html


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 3, 2012)

Hard to go wrong with either lens.

I had the non-IS version of the F/4 before going to the 2.8 IS II and the sharpness to me is just a hair sharper on the 2.8, but the biggest difference I find is having 2.8 for lower light as well as it seems to focus faster and a lot less hunting below F/8 as well. 

That being said, I also have possibly been thinking of "downgrading" my 2.8 IS II to the 4 IS in the future depending on the 5D MK III (i.e. selling price of 5D MK II + 70-200 F/2.8 IS II + $300 = 5D MK III + 70 - 200 F/4 IS)

Love Love Love the 2.8 II, but if the AF is greatly improved on the III, then I may sacrifice my 2.8 and compromise with the 4 IS to get better overall AF on all lenses. Also will be a tough decision because I really love the IQ of the 2.8 and the weight does not bother me. 

huge portion depends on pricing. I will be tempted if the 5DIII comes anywhere close to $2800 as a release price, if it is mid 3s, then not sure I can justify that jump as much, at least not for a while


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 3, 2012)

They are both very good lenses! I have an f4 IS basicly because the weight matters to me (carrying around 4-5 lenses when out shooting). 

Which is more suited to you depends on your purpose; if budget or weight is important f4 IS otherwise f2.8 IS II I would say. Naturally f2.8 IS mark 1 as well as the non IS versions of both should be given a consideration. To my knowledge they are all sharp lenses (yes some sharper than the others  )...


----------



## JR (Feb 3, 2012)

Since low light is an issue for you and unless you want to shoot with a flash all the time in those situation, go for the 2.8. I got a monopod for mine and it is very useful if the weight start to bother you. Dont get me wrong you are looking at two amazing lens both very sharp. But if it comes down to low light and being able to stop the action without a flash, you need the f2.8. If not, consider the f4.

Jacques


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 3, 2012)

Hi,
If money is NOT an issue…I would highly recommend f2.8 IS II. 

The f2.8 IS II is tack sharp even at f2.8, not to mention great IQ under low light – especially on my 5D II…and so my 60D.

I never own f4 before and I do not know how much lighter in real life. 
FYI…I’m 5’5”, 140lbs…I do not have problem carry f2.8 IS II around all day.

Good luck,
Dylan


----------



## Crapking (Feb 3, 2012)

Might want to consider the 135/2 L and the 70-200/4
Best of both worlds ??


----------



## fotografiasi (Feb 3, 2012)

Crapking's idea is really good

I own the 70-200 2.8 is ii and i use it on a 50D. I also tried the 70-200 4 is that a friend owns. Now what you choose depends entirely on you, where you want to use the lens and why. Of course the 2.8 is ii is better but also more expensive, heavy and large. The 4 is looks like a toy compared to the 2.8 is ii, but is much lighter, smaller and less expensive.

Now, if you are going to use the lens for yourself, for your soul, choose the 4 is, because it will be much more easy to take it with you and use it. Doing this the chances to use the new lens will increase dramatically and you will be happier with the new acquisition.

If you are going to use this lens for professional purposes, taking photos not only for you but also for other people, the things change. This is not 100% true, there are also exceptions. But if you have to deliver photos to a client, you have to do it in the best way possible. Now I do not say that the 4 is does not perform... it does, and it does it very well.

If you need a long lens just for portraiture buy the 135 L. It is great. I also tested it. I like the quality it delivers and the lighter package it comes in. Superb lens.

It all depends on you, what you want this lens for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2012)

Love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. It's heavy and big and expensive, and totally worth it for the images it delivers. 

Once you get to f/4, it's more of a challenge to get good OOF blur, and in indoor ambient light, I'm usually reaching for a Speedlite at f/4. So, to me there's a significant difference between f/2.8 (good OOF blur, can shoot indoor ambient at ISO 3200) and f/4 (insufficient OOF blur for most portraits, need a flash indoors). However, even though the relative difference in light/aperture is the same, IMO the difference between f/4 and f/5.6 has much less significance. I mention this because if I were going to skip the f/2.8 version for weight/budget, I'd get the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS instead of the 70-200mm f/4L IS. 

OTOH, the suggestion of the 70-200/4 IS with a faster prime like the 135/2 (or 85/1.8) is a good one, although I'd still consider the 70-300L instead, for the broader range.


----------



## JR (Feb 4, 2012)

Crapking said:


> Might want to consider the 135/2 L and the 70-200/4
> Best of both worlds ??



I like this option too, as the 135L is sitting on my camera more and more for indoor shots. I must say though there is no equivalent for a 200mm shot taking inside with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II at f2.8 for the OOF blur as Neuro mentionned. As much as I love the 135L, everyone of my close up done at 200mm and 2.8 are amazing!

Jacques


----------



## RC (Feb 4, 2012)

I chose the F4 IS over the 2.8 primarily for weight and portability. For my use that was/is more important than 1 extra stop. If you're choosing between these two lens, it really comes down to just that, weight/portability vs an extra stop. Only you can really decide.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2012)

This could make the decision even harder.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/03/tokina-to-announce-a-new-at-x-70-200mm-f4-pro-if-fx-lens-at-the-cp-show.aspx/

Tokina makes really nice glass.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 4, 2012)

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is top of the line and I love it, easily my favourite lens. For the record it's really not that heavy, I can carry it all day on my BlackRapid strap with ease. I researched high and low before I bought mine and I really couldn't find someone who said anything bad about it. The F4 is apparently very good as well, so you really can't go wrong. Obviously the extra stop of the 2.8 is handy at time for regular shooting. In the end going with the F4 for me wasn't an option, as I shoot my kids indoor sports and I really need the 2.8.....not to mention a 1DX, but that's a whole other story.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Feb 4, 2012)

Great lens in this range and have owned them both. 

If price and weight is a concern then go with the f/4 its the sharpest on the market (minus the mk 2version).
from all the older lens this version rocks.

If speed, low light and quality where weight you don't care about like I do just get the best hands down, 2.8 IS 2 nothing beats it, the only other lens that I know to give this quality at a cheaper price is the tamron 70-200mm, but theres nothing like a L lens with all its buttons and switches.


----------



## Diverman (Feb 6, 2012)

Thank you all for the responses! I ended up going with the 2.8, after I went to a local camera store so I could compare the weight of both lenses. The 2.8 wasn't very heavy to me, especially since I was expecting something ridiculously heavy. I am very excited!

Thanks again!


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 6, 2012)

Good choice, you won't regret it.


----------



## JR (Feb 6, 2012)

Diverman said:


> Thank you all for the responses! I ended up going with the 2.8, after I went to a local camera store so I could compare the weight of both lenses. The 2.8 wasn't very heavy to me, especially since I was expecting something ridiculously heavy. I am very excited!
> 
> Thanks again!



Congrat Diverman...now the real fun start: you can start shooting with this wonderful lens!


----------

