# please help me choose



## april (Dec 16, 2010)

i wanted to buy a 70-200mm L-lens and i'm choosing between f4L IS & f2.8L IS II. I have tried using the f2.8 II ones, aside from finding it a bit heavy the price is hefty. I'm weighing if i would get an f4L instead but i haven't tried it yet since there isn't any to hire that's why i'm seeking your help. the downside i guess is using f4 shooting indoors in a natural light and the 67mm filter size.


----------



## contrastny (Dec 16, 2010)

One thing to consider is if you plan on using a teleconverter with it, then you may want to go with the f/2.8. 

You'll have a 98 - 280mm f/4 with a 1.4 TC and a 140 - 400 f/5.6 with a 2.0 TC.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 16, 2010)

I put my vote in for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II but I think it's not a simple answer:

a large part of the decision (besides cost and weight) really comes down to what kind of shooting you do. if you're shooting a lot of low-light (wedding photography) or sports, then it's almost imperative you get one of the f/2.8 versions. if you're shooting outdoor and landscapes, then I recommend sticking with the f/4, because the difference in image quality between the new 2.8 and the f/4 L IS is really negligible, so you might as well save yourself the weight and money.

all canon gear exists for a functional reason, not just to be a cheap alternative (except the kit stuff), so it's really about determining what your needs are and picking the lens that suits those specific needs


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2010)

It really depends on your shooting needs (and partly on your stamina). Indoor events, sports, etc., you want f/2.8 (and for sports, the IS is not really needed). Outdoor use, etc., f/4 is fine, and if you're going to be hiking around with a 70-200mm zoom and other lenses, the f/4 IS may be a better choice. You're paying quite a penalty in cost and weight for that extra stop of light, but if you need it, that's that. 

Some people have both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS versions, for different purposes. Likewise, I have both the 70-200 II and the 100-400mm (which are about the same size/weight), but for a while I also had the 70-300mm DO for times when I wanted to travel light (and I'm considering the new 70-300 L for the same reason).

One other consideration is that the f/2.8 lens provides a brighter viewfinder image and also allows use of the higher-precision f/2.8 center AF point found on recent camera bodies.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2010)

For me, it is pretty straight forward.
If money is not an issue, then defnitely go with the f/2.8

Otherwise:
- If you are using this for outdoor shots with good light, go with the f/4
- If you are using this for indoor shots, then you will want the f/2.8

- If you will do both, ask yourself how often you will shoot indoors. If the answer is infrequently, just rent the 2.8 when you have the events and buy the f/4. Otherwise you need to spend the extra $$ on the f/2.8.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 20, 2010)

As one other user said if money is no issue then I'd spend the $$ as well on the 2.8. If you go with the F4 and do have a low light situation turn on the IS as it will help a bit (4 stops I believe/slower shutter-hand held) just keep an extra battery around as they do soak up juice and as long as there is no fast action in your scene. If so then crank up the ISO. If too much noise is created for your liking by doing this then offset by software. There are plenty of software programs to knock the noise with your capture such as Topaz DeNoise. You can also possibly use some of your camera settings to minimize noise.


----------



## april (Dec 21, 2010)

Thank you so much to all of you who paid attention to my problem, I really appreciate it I know it was hard for you to comment since I haven't told you how i shoot. I don't do photo bizniz I'm just addicted to photography,i'm into a religious organization where I volunteered in documenting the activities.
I do most of my shots indoors and I avoid using flash as much as i could. At the momment I'm using a canon 50D paired with 24-105mm & EF-S 60mm macro. I'm looking forward to upgrading to FF next year a 5dII or 5dIII if I'd be lucky.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 21, 2010)

I've had both. There is a big difference in weight and portability, but nothing that you can't overcome. I decided to keep the f/4 IS model, because most of my indoor shooting is done with a prime, and outdoors the f/4 is just fine. 

You need to look at your situation and decide accordingly.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 21, 2010)

scales brings up a good point.

if really most of the work is indoor shooting ... it could be more worth it (and far, far cheaper) to get a combination of the 135 f/2 and 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 ... etc. cheap, light, far more light reaching the sensor.

in fact, if you are a new shooter, I really recommend going this route rather than dropping the $2000+ on a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II


----------



## revup67 (Dec 22, 2010)

I've got the 50mm 1.4 and at the wider apertures it's pretty soft even after a lens alignment. I wouldn't dare trade in the lens it's just not as sharp as one would hope under 2.8

Side Stepping: if you are going to shoot in such lower light levels don't rely on the camera's AWB, get yourself used to using a proper White Balance card such as the WhiBal if you don't already have one. What a difference from using AWB to Custom WB when using the WhiBal. The yellowy smokey look is gone and white is proper white.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 25, 2010)

Basically, do you need f/2.8? If not, save the money and buy the f/4. It's proven to be sharper than its f/2.8 sibling. Costs less, weighs less. But there's something to be said about f/2.8.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 25, 2010)

Is 200mm the most you will use? That's an important consideration too. For the longest time I thought about getting a 70-200mm, then a 70-300mm, and finally I decided I didn't need the 70mm range or even a Canon lens (at least, there wasn't one that I preferred in that range).


----------



## rupesh770 (Dec 26, 2010)

i am stucked too i am with 30d and 18-70 ef-s lens and i am thinking to go for FF but i am just confuse between the same lenses 70-200, 2.8 II and 5d II or 1d IV body


----------



## april (Dec 26, 2010)

dash2k8 said:


> Basically, do you need f/2.8? If not, save the money and buy the f/4. It's proven to be sharper than its f/2.8 sibling. Costs less, weighs less. But there's something to be said about f/2.8.





dash2k8 said:


> Basically, do you need f/2.8? If not, save the money and buy the f/4. It's proven to be sharper than its f/2.8 sibling. Costs less, weighs less. But there's something to be said about f/2.8.



my basis for considering the 70-200mm f2.8 or f4 is because i want a lens that has:
1) inner focusing, inner zoom & non-rotating front element
2) fulltime manual focus
3) a versatile zoom range
4) big constant apperture
5) build & optical quality

my other thing to consider is i am upgrading to FF (5DIII hopefully)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2010)

april said:


> my basis for considering the 70-200mm f2.8 or f4 is because i want a lens that has:
> 1) inner focusing, inner zoom & non-rotating front element
> 2) fulltime manual focus
> 3) a versatile zoom range
> ...



Fundamentally, the only difference between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lenses is part of #4 on your list - the word, "big." An f/2.8 aperture is definitely bigger than f/4. The question is, do you need that extra stop of light?

Else, both lenses are internal zoom and rear focusing, non-rotating front element, have FTM, have the same versatile zoom range, have a constant aperture, have excellent build including weather-sealing (as long as you add a filter), and the optical quality of the two lenses is almost identical.


----------

