# Which lens to go with



## chilakamarthi (Apr 6, 2014)

I need a suggestion on buying lens. I have 70-200 F4 IS. Someone is selling 70-200 F2.8 IS and my mind is pulling me to buy it. Honestly I am very happy with IQ of my current lens. 

Below points are lingering in my mind and not able to make decision.

F4 IS F 2.8 IS (V1)
Both got IS
$900 $1100
1.6 lb 2.9 lb
F4 F 2.8 1 f-stop high
IQ I love it. Don’t know…

F4 IS, I already have it with me and I love this lens. But someone is ready to buy it for $900. I get $100 gain in this deal as I bought it for $800.

Not able to decide to go for F2.8 IS or keep F4 IS and use the extra money for Rokinon 14mm F2.8?

I normally shoot, functions, people and nature and I am not earning from my photography 

Any help?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2014)

The f/4 IS is sharper than the f/2.8 IS, the latter is bigger and heavier. If you don't need f/2.8 for indoor sports or subject isolation for portraits, I'd stick with the f/4.


----------



## gshocked (Apr 6, 2014)

Hi,

Tough choice...

If your happy with the IQ of the lens you have now then maybe you should get a new lens.

The Pros of the f2.8 version is the huge amount of light that the lens takes in. I shot indoor an event recently and maintained 1600-3200 ISO, while using a 70-200 f2.8L II. Then when I put my 24-105 f4 L, my ISO is at least 3200 - 6400. The bokeh on the 2.8 is also very smooth, which makes a huge difference to some people.

The Cons of f2.8 is the weight. I've only used a 70-200 f4 IS once and recall how light that lens is. I'm planning to travel soon and I'm worried how heaving my gear will be with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II with me.

It a tough choice... I'd stick and save your money and buy the canon 16-35 f2.8 lens 

Also Check this video out:

http://youtu.be/n_g2JRj-V-E


----------



## ktatty (Apr 6, 2014)

Unless you need the 2.8 aperture, i would stick with the f4 and the lighter weight.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 6, 2014)

My perspective is totally different because I'm a newbie with only two lenses. If I already had a 70-200 I would get something else in a different range to broaden my capabilities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2014)

gshocked said:


> ...while using a 70-200 f2.8L II.



I'd take the f/2.8 IS II over the f/4 IS (in fact, I did), but the f/4 IS over the f/2.8 IS (MkI) unless I absolutely needed the extra stop.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 6, 2014)

For years I have been shooting the 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark I and haven't decided to upgrade to the Mark II, because the old lens is still very good and also very reliable.

For shooting events or people you will obviously notice its f2.8 (as previously mentioned by gshocked), but you will also notice its nice bokeh, which should be better wide open compared even to the newer and sharper Mark II version. This alone is the reason I haven't felt the need to upgrade.

The image quality difference between Mark I and Mark II versions is more noticeable using extenders, so you shouldn't use something like a x2 extender on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS or you lose significant image quality. In the Mark II lens this appears to be less of an issue. Then again if using extenders is not an option you want to explore, feel free to ignore that part.

Image quality differences between the f4 and f2.8 versions should be negligible. I have used both and always preferred the f2.8 version. I tend to shoot wide open all the time with such lenses, so the bokeh and f2.8 make for far more than a small difference.

According to the findings at LensRentals.com there is also a marked difference in robustness between the older f4 and f2.8 versions and the newer lens generation.

Just one week ago I accidentally dropped my 70-200mm on a stone terrace. It fell for about 1m and then it bounced from one end to the other. At first I was in a complete panic. Physically I found some dust on the lens hood, but wiping it off, it looked fine. I then ran the lens through autofocus tests for hours on end without finding anything amiss. I am still completely amazed how that came out, because I ended up with the lens showing neither physical damage on the outside nor any damage I could find through my tests on the inside, but I wouldn't bet a pizza on a Mark II surviving such a drop intact based on the findings published by LensRentals.com.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The f/4 IS is sharper than the f/2.8 IS, the latter is bigger and heavier. If you don't need f/2.8 for indoor sports or subject isolation for portraits, I'd stick with the f/4.



But stopping down to f4 they are very similar. There's no arguing with the weight difference though


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 7, 2014)

V2 vs V1 makes the whole point easy IMHO. Get the F4 V2.


----------



## gshocked (Apr 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > ...while using a 70-200 f2.8L II.
> ...



+1.

The weight of the 2.8 is a killer. Especially on the 2.8v2


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 7, 2014)

gshocked said:


> The Cons of f2.8 is the weight. I've only used a 70-200 f4 IS once and recall how light that lens is. I'm planning to travel soon and I'm worried how heaving my gear will be with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II with me.



+1

While the IQ of the 2.8 (I have the v2) is amazing, I have simply missed having a telephoto with me just because its weight made it inconvenient to carry. Which is why I had to get a separate telephoto for traveling. 
If you haven't constantly felt the need for more light when using your f/4 then I don't suggest you change.


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 7, 2014)

Please use more conditional. To each his own. 5d3 gripped + 2.8 II IS is fine by me and I' m totally not athletic. Add the x2 converter and yeah I can' t last very long.

The weight issue of the 2.8 is overstated by some. (Don' t see a value judgment please.) Just try it out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2014)

For $200 you'd be crazy to pass on the 2.8 IS, especially as you list functions and people amongst your interests, I have had one since they came out and have never had any desire to upgrade it. If the f4 tests sharper then it isn't visible in actual real world images at normal sizes.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 7, 2014)

Regarding lens size and weight there is no substitute to testing this yourself.

I wouldn't consider any of the 70-200mm zooms too heavy for extended use. If for example someone can safely carry a baby, why wouldn't the same person be able to carry a 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II zoom on a gripped 5D?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 7, 2014)

AmbientLight said:


> Regarding lens size and weight there is no substitute to testing this yourself.
> 
> I wouldn't consider any of the 70-200mm zooms too heavy for extended use. If for example someone can safely carry a baby, why wouldn't the same person be able to carry a 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II zoom on a gripped 5D?



I have a pal who is an equestrian photographer and he'd shoot at events, selling the pictures to the competitors, so it is a case of shooting every rider for the duration of the event. ( something that would drive me nuts). He used a 1D + 70-200 2.8 and did eventually suffer from strained hand. The last time but one time I saw him he had it strapped up; the last time he was using a 7D + 70-200/4. 

So size and weight can matter, it's a question of the individuals priorities and circumstances.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 7, 2014)

AmbientLight said:


> Regarding lens size and weight there is no substitute to testing this yourself.



Totally accurate.



AmbientLight said:


> I wouldn't consider any of the 70-200mm zooms too heavy for extended use. If for example someone can safely carry a baby, why wouldn't the same person be able to carry a 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II zoom on a gripped 5D?



This is, unfortunately, missing the point on so many counts.
1. Do you frequently hold up the baby at eye level, rather than resting him on your shoulders/body?
2. When you are also carrying other gear, food, etc., then the additional 1 lbs can be an issue.
3. Sometimes, there simply might not be room in the bag you are carrying, and you might not want to take a bigger bag for so many reasons (real-life experience).


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding lens size and weight there is no substitute to testing this yourself.
> ...



For repeated actions like you described it, I can understand these consequences. For a person not making a living from photography like the original poster, there is little risk of this happening.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> AmbientLight said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding lens size and weight there is no substitute to testing this yourself.
> ...



Sounds like a monopod would be of benefit.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds like a monopod would be of benefit.



Where these equestrian photographers are shooting cross country events and have to be based at one fence, some of them do use monopods or even tripods. However when shooting show jumping events the photographer inside the ring moves around to get the competitors over more than one fence. The whole round only lasts about 60 seconds. I have never seen a monopod used by anyone under these circumstances. 

You can see the sort of thing on his website: www.jumpforit.co.uk

You might even see me


----------



## friedrice1212 (Apr 9, 2014)

Mark I is just fine as long as you don't shoot at 200mm 2.8. Very unsharp. And the weight is a big factor. At first I thought that I was a built guy and the weight wouldn't be a problem, but handholding it for a 3h long show made me think otherwise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

friedrice1212 said:


> Mark I is just fine as long as you don't shoot at 200mm 2.8. Very unsharp. And the weight is a big factor. At first I thought that I was a built guy and the weight wouldn't be a problem, but handholding it for a 3h long show made me think otherwise.



That is utter rubbish, mine is razor sharp at 200 and f2.8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Might lack a little contrast, but the resolution is there.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 11, 2014)

I'd stick with the F/4 until you start needing that f/2.8. A stop is alot more light but also alot more weight to lug around for something your not being paid for.


----------



## terminatahx (Apr 19, 2014)

The 2.8 versions of the 7-200 are in a totally different league than the f4. Get it.


----------



## Keem (Apr 26, 2014)

For shooting people f2.8 version will allow better bokeh/subject isolation
For landscapes if you are travelling f4 will be better since it is smaller/lighter; more portable

If you do not use teleconverters and do not pixel peep the IQ of both lenses are identical. If you are planning to use teleconverters mkII version of f2.8 is a better choice. 

For landscapes keeping f4 and buying the 14mm Rokinon seems to be a better choice.
For portraits you may need faster glass (you can also consider a fast 85mm Rokinon)


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 26, 2014)

since you have the f4 IS consider getting the 135 f2L for when you need extra light its a stop faster again than the f2.8 and has far superior IQ to the mk1 and I feel superior IQ to even the mk2 I got mine second hand for $700 a couple of years old.

Shooting people at functions you want 1/100 shutter speed anyway to keep them reasonably sharp so the F2 of the 135 will be a bigger help. (Unless of course you are dragging the shutter with flash and can control ambient spill light to a certain degree.

If I were in your situation knowing what I know now and owning these lenses that Is what I would do (I have the 70-200 f2.8 MkII) its big and heavy and I don't use it as much now since getting the 135L


----------



## Razor2012 (May 4, 2014)

I love shooting events and couldn't live without my 70-200 2.8 II. IMO if you're not shooting portraits and landscapes (for example), you do need that extra speed. No time to play around.


----------

