# 70-200 4 IS or 70-200 2.8 II IS? Quality vs weight? I know 2.8 is quite heavy?



## skoobey (Jul 11, 2014)

Yes, about these two, I've used 100 2.8L macro, love it for beauty work, don't use it enough to actually buy it, but it is a great lens. I also use 24-105 as my walk around lens, and it is great for that, however, I'm looking for my new go to lens for studio work.

I shoot mostly studio work, beauty, stills, and portraits.

Now, how sharper is the 2.8 over the 4.0? Chromatic aberrations? I've read all the reviews, and I concluded that except that it's much slower(less bokeh), that it is only marginally less sharp?

I know I want 4.0 for the weight savings, and non-IS version is not an option. Is the 2.8 really that much better if I
don't need 2.8 aperture?

How about distortion? I really like 0 distortion on the macro lenses. My most used focal lengths are 35,50,70 and 105(which would probably be 135-150 on 70-200 lens).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2014)

If you don't need/want f/2.8, I'd go with the f/4 IS. The 2.8 II is very slightly sharper, probably not enough of a difference to matter in real-world use. I have the 2.8 II, love it, but for travel I take the 70-300L.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2014)

I tried both out for an extended period of time and could not see any difference in image quality.

I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.

The F4 version is a LOT! lighter and smaller. I hike a lot and it's ease of carrying is what sealed the deal for me.

I ended up getting the F4... it is my favourite lens.


----------



## rs (Jul 11, 2014)

skoobey said:


> How about distortion? I really like 0 distortion on the macro lenses. My most used focal lengths are 35,50,70 and 105(which would probably be 135-150 on 70-200 lens).



Here's the distortion at 135 on both lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&FLI=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=2

And a comparison of the mk II at 135 and the 135/2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=2&FLIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&LensComp=108


----------



## skoobey (Jul 11, 2014)

I read that review, but I can't seem to find info on corner sharpness anywhere.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2014)

I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ. I would make your decision on the following:

Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
- 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
- shallower DOF (both have great bokeh, but f/2.8 is better for subject isolation - though f/4 at 150-200mm provides plenty shallow DOF for most purposes including portraits)
- somewhat tougher (all metal vs. excellent engineering plastic) build quality
- a tripod ring in the box (though the f/4 IS + way overpriced Canon ring is still much cheaper than the f/2.8 IS II)
-AF with the 2xIII extender on all bodies 

For me, it is, but if I traveled much at all or didn't need the low light speed of f/2.8, I'd go back to the f/4 IS.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.



I find this strange. I had both at the same time for a brief period and while the AF on the F/4 is no slouch, I always felt it was noticeably slower than the 2.8ii.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ. I would make your decision on the following:
> 
> Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
> - 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
> ...



What Mackguyver said....spot on with my findings too!
Just to add, I think any difference between lenses (f2.8 vs f4) is more likely to be copy variation than any measurable statistic. In real world use they are optically and pertty much mechanically equal, except for the lesser build on the f4.


----------



## FTb-n (Jul 11, 2014)

I replaced a 70-300 non-L with the 70-200 2.8L II IS and was very leery of the extra weight. I had already experienced headaches from shoulder bags with an old Rebel XT and the 70-300 non-L, so the weight of the new lens on the slightly heavier 60D did concern me. Ultimately, it's not an issue.

Of course, your mileage may vary and my needs are different. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and events. The 2.8 is critical for low light sports and the IS is critical for events with even less light.

I also dabble in portraits and this lens is my first choice. I love the flexibility of having 2.8 to isolate the subject. I bought the lens for low-light speed and expected the shallow DOF to be an added benefit. But, I didn't fully appreciate 2.8 -- especially on FF -- until I used it. 

Since first getting the 70-200, I've switched to full frame and now routinely carry two 5D3's, one with a short zoom and one with the 70-200. The latter is by far my most used lens. The weight issue was solved with shoulder bags from ThinkTank and, most recently, Capture Clips by Peak Design.

I appreciate the temptation for the lighter and cheaper lens, but I can't imagine not having the heavier 2.8.


----------



## WiSaGaN (Jul 11, 2014)

I had the same question before I finally bought f/2.8L II. The biggest concern then is weight.

After owning the lens for half a year, I have never regretted the decision. I often take 2.8 out three to four hours, not once do I feel it is too heavy for my hand.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that the F4 version focused quicker.... but not by a big amount. You really had to try side by side to notice a difference, and both are fast and did not show a tendency to hunt.
> ...


Could be the body.... I compared on a 60D. Are you shooting with a 1DX? Some lenses are noticeably faster with it...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 11, 2014)

I like 2.8 ii. It works well with 1.4x iii tc. With br strap, the weight should not be a problem.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2014)

I owned a f/4 IS for years, it was and still is wonderful. After owning 6 or 7 of the f/2.8 versions, I bought the f/2.8 MK II version and sold the f/4. It is heavier, but not so much that its a problem. If I plan to use it for hours non stop, I use a monopod.


You will not go wrong with either.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I like 2.8 ii. It works well with 1.4x iii tc. With br strap, the weight should not be a problem.



I regularly use it with a 1.4x II and the performance with that TC also remains excellent. I see no reason to invest in the Mk III.

The 2.8 IS is quite a heavy monster, but it's a magical monster. Worth it!!!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the 2.8 II, love it, but for travel I take the 70-300L.



+1

The 70-300L delivers staggeringly good image quality, I had to buy and use one to believe it 

Also, it collapses to a significantly shorter length than the 70-200 f/4 and will fit upright in most camera bags.


----------



## Derrick (Jul 11, 2014)

Regardless of weight, I use my 1Ds Mk3 plus 70-200 2.8 ll more often than any other lens. Having owned and tested a multitude of 70-200 variations and not finding any to be nearly as sharp as my primes, my Mk2 now out-resolves all my other lenses in this range.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

Derrick said:


> Regardless of weight, I use my 1Ds Mk3 plus 70-200 2.8 ll more often than any other lens. Having owned and tested a multitude of 70-200 variations and not finding any to be nearly as sharp as my primes, my Mk2 now out-resolves all my other lenses in this range.



This lens is also the reason why I have no primes in those focal lengths, save the 100L macro.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 11, 2014)

Indoor sports on monopod... great... I don't care about that 

I shoot mostly hand held and portrait orientation, meaning I have to hold camera body and the lens for 3-6 hours a day in this position.


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 11, 2014)

It seems weight is importance factor for you. The f/4 IS is no doubt much lighter. 

Do you use a strap system like a BlackRapid or something like that. Using something like a strap system or a Spyder holster system might make the f/2.8L IS II manageable for 4 - 6 hour sessions. 

One major reason to have the 2.8 is to stop action, especially indoors. You don't have a need for that it seems. 

How big is your studio? If it is pretty large, you might be able to make use of the 70-300mm L IS, which at 300mm will blow out your backgrounds nicely! So, if you don't need f/2.8 to stop action and you want a lighter lens, perhaps the 70-300mm L IS is a good middle ground. It can also be used as a travel lens with your 24-105mm IS. 

Depends also on your style...do you want parts of their face out of focus? Then the 2.8 is needed. 

In a studio, you can move around no? What do you need that your 24-105mm f/4L IS cannot give you now? I am thinkin 105mm in a studio setting as long enough. If it is shallow depth of field you are after, you might be better served by a 50mm prime: Canon 50mm f/1.2L or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art. Just my two cents.

Kind regards,
Jason S.


skoobey said:


> Indoor sports on monopod... great... I don't care about that
> 
> I shoot mostly hand held and portrait orientation, meaning I have to hold camera body and the lens for 3-6 hours a day in this position.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 11, 2014)

What I need is longer lens. 

I don't do shallow DOF, and my subject are often on the floor, on furniture or against the backdrop, so...

I know I want one of these two, and I hate changing lenses so 135 and 200 were not an option.


----------



## curtisnull (Jul 11, 2014)

I loved my f4 but sold it a few months after I got my first 2.8. Now I'm on the 2.8 v2 and it is my go to lens for a lot of things. I still wish I had the f4 for traveling simply because of weight. The image quality is exceptional on both. I think I remember that Art Wolfe uses the f4 also because of weight.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2014)

skoobey said:


> What I need is longer lens.
> 
> I don't do shallow DOF, and my subject are often on the floor, on furniture or against the backdrop, so...
> 
> I know I want one of these two, and I hate changing lenses so 135 and 200 were not an option.


If you're mostly doing studio work without needing shallow DOF, I'd definitely go with the f/4 IS. It's a great lens and the size, weight, and cost savings are well worth the aperture trade off, especially if you don't NEED f/2.8. Besides, if you watched the Olympics in Sochi, you might have noticed that nearly all of the indoor sports shooters were using the 200-400 1.4x, which is f/4. Yes, they were using 1D Xs, but just four years ago, they were all using 200 f/2s or the 300 & 400 f/2.8s, so fast lenses aren't what they used to be.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



1Ds3 but that was true for both lenses. I did have some issues with the AF slipping on the F/4 IS when tilted upright so maybe that was slowing down the AF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > What I need is longer lens.
> ...



I'm going to point out something here. Big events like the Olympics and NCAA Div. I basketball are very, very well lit. Even the lighting at bigger schools in non-basketball sports is awful. Shoot anything less and f/4 believe me, will NOT cut it. Most of the shooters on here will not likely be at these bigger events. I shot volleyball at St. John Arena at Ohio State (MSU vs. OSU) and most of my exposures were 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 5000-6400. I wouldn't have shot that event had I not had a 1Dx AND the 2.8 zoom lens. Just walk across campus to the Schottenstein Center for a basketball game and you're doing 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 1250-1600 easily.


----------



## ed-m (Jul 11, 2014)

I have to second the comment on low light at sports events. I shoot ice hockey and frequently find myself shooting F2.8 at 6400 iso (5D Mk iii) .... I need a fast shutter speed as the action is fast and the only way to get there is at F2.8.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 11, 2014)

skoobey said:


> What I need is longer lens.
> 
> I don't do shallow DOF, and my subject are often on the floor, on furniture or against the backdrop, so...
> 
> I know I want one of these two, and I hate changing lenses so 135 and 200 were not an option.



If you don't need shallow DOF or the motion stopping of f/2.8 and care about weight it's pretty clear that the 70-200 f/4 IS is the one to get.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 11, 2014)

skoobey said:


> I know I want 4.0 for the weight savings, and non-IS version is not an option. Is the 2.8 really that much better if I don't need 2.8 aperture?



As everyone else has been saying, no, not much better (probably not better at all unless you do side-by-side comparisons at 100%), unless you need the extra speed. For that matter, one could say much the same thing of the 70-300L (where the extra focal length makes up for differences in aperture with regard to depth of focus - plus, it has very smooth bokeh).


----------



## steven kessel (Jul 11, 2014)

I own an f4L and love it. It's wonderfully light and reasonably portable. I sometimes carry it on my belt in a canvas case that I bought for about $5 and that is designed to hold a water bottle. It's also possibly the sharpest non-prime lens that I own, way sharper than the 100-400 f4-5.6L. 

I find that it is extremely versatile due to its lightness. I've used it to photograph insects and birds and just about everything in between. I have friends who own the 2.8L and who rave about it, and I'm sure it's a very fine lens. But, it's a behemoth compared to my f4 and certainly not nearly as portable as is the f4. And, as for the extra stops, well, I just never experienced all that much of a need for them.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 11, 2014)

Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 12, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Cool, will get the IS 4.
> 
> 70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.


You'll love it. It was my favorite lens for many years - kind of miss it after all this talk...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 12, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Cool, will get the IS 4.
> 
> 70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.



My 70-300L was sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm. Photozone gets same result too.

Even my Tamron 70-300 VC was sharper at 70mm than 70-200 f/4 IS (70mm is the weakest point of the 70-200 f/4 IS), even if that was not the case everywhere else along the range.

70-200 f/4 IS had the least lateral CA at 70mm, but was also, oddly enough, the least sharp of the three for me under ultra careful testing (tripod, remote release, 25' to target, constant indoor lighting, best of 8-12 liveview 10x zoom attemps trials for each lens at each aperture).

70-200 f/4 IS was the sharpest of the three in the middle range of the zoom

70-300L was the sharpest at 185mm and up (although the 70-200 f/4 IS wasn't too far behind 185-200mm, the difference was much more noticeable over 200mm, with the 1.4x TC III on the 70-200 f/4 IS to let it get over 200mm).

Both 70-200 f4 IS and 70-300L are very good optically. Tamron is shockingly close at the edge, but actually it is in the center frame where it doesn't always have quite the same bite and sometmes has more halation and such.

I know TDP shows the 70-300L and Tamron doing badly at 70mm and the 70-300L only doing OK at 200mm and up and the Tamrom doing hideously, but those were not my results, nor those of Photozone and many others. It looks like he dropped his Tamron before testing and I really don't know how he got 70-200 f/4 IS+TC to look better than bare 70-300L. Maybe copy variation. Some say they have the 70-300L do relatively better in comparison to the 70-200 f/4 IS in the mid range and not at the extremes, so that may be copy variation, but it seems much more common the other way, with 70-300L doing relatively better at the extremes and worse mid-range, seems to me about 80% get the latter results and only 20%,if even and probably less, the other result.


----------



## slclick (Jul 12, 2014)

I have owned 3 different Canon 70-200's and the Tamron with VC. I now have the Canon 2.8 Mk2 and would never consider anything else. Weight be damned, image quality comes first. Oh and build, nothing else will do.


----------



## MacroBug (Jul 12, 2014)

I bought the 2.8 II last week and can't get it off of my camera. I also have the 24-70 2.8 II and the 100 2.8L IS. The color and contrast is incredible and in some cases the photos look almost 3D. I sold my 70-200 f4L IS a few weeks ago because the f4 was limiting and I didn't really use it. Go with the 2.8II as it's well worth the money and extra weight!


----------



## djack41 (Jul 12, 2014)

I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.

I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 14, 2014)

djack41 said:


> I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.
> 
> I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.



Yep, I had the f4 version for a while and I've had the f2.8 version for some time too. So for a while I had both. I bought the f4 for travelling and in that context, it was perfect. It was also far easier to use for close up work too, eg rocks, details and larger flowers. In this context it was better and sharper than the f2.8 and a lot easier to handle on a tripod. If I was going to buy again, I'd probably get the 70-300L instead. but to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Cool, will get the IS 4.
> 
> 70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.



OP already choose the 70-200 IS4, so we could actually close this topic.




GMCPhotographics said:


> ...to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.



True, for me it boils down to this:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II: This lens's f/2.8 and prime lens image quality allows me to forego a bunch of primes in these focal lengths. It's also the best event/reportage lens. Comes at a price but is the absolute king and works fabulously with a 1.4 teleconverter..

70-300L: Get this one for versatility and compactness; the ideal travel tele-zoom with stunning image quality. The placement of the focus ring near the camera body makes this a little awkward to use if you like to (fine-tune) focus manually.

70-200 f/4 IS: The excellent 70-200 for people with smaller weight and /or budget tolerance. The only reason not to get this is if you already own one of the two other lenses (which is why I've not owned one of these personally).


----------



## whothafunk (Jul 14, 2014)

Post removed by Moderator


----------



## skoobey (Jul 14, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> I will never, truly ever understand people who say 70-200 f2.8 (1.5kg) is heavy. Are you all super skinny with only bones and skin? I can hold my 70-200 with 70D 8 hour straight, as I did on several occasions. Sure my wrist hurt somewhat at the end of the day, but as I see this kind of whining, it's like you have to hold a 10kg barbell.
> 
> Bring on the "how dare you use that tone with us/mind your manners!".




"On several occasions" is not the same as almost every day. Also, if I did that, I would become skinny.
Heavy weights for short period of time=buff.
Light weights for a long period of time=skin and bones.
Everyone knows that.

I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?

How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?

Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!


----------



## DigitalDivide (Jul 14, 2014)

skoobey said:


> I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?
> 
> How crucial is it for tripod stability? I don't notice that it's prone to leaning more than any other lens I've used, perhaps 85mm is the exception?
> 
> Canon is asking 145$ for Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II??? That is crazy!



I choked at the price for the Canon ring too. I got the Vello Tripod Collar A instead. It is only $50 at B&H and is available in white to match the 70-200. I haven't mounted that lens on a tripod so I can't comment on the stability; I used the collar with a BlackRapid strap, which allows the camera and lens to balance horizontally when I'm not holding it.

The Vello mount seems pretty well made and I have had no problems with it. It doesn't rotate as smoothly as the Canon ring on my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS though, so if you like to switch between horizontal and vertical shots a lot that could be an issue. I haven't compared it to the Canon f/4 ring so I don't know if it is any better in that regard.


----------



## wsheldon (Jul 14, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?
> ...



I bought the Opteka tripod ring for ~$25, and it didn't prove to be worth keeping on the lens. The fit was loose (I couldn't tighten it down to maintain position without wobbling and rotating) and it appears to be made of some pot metal that is rough and not nearly as nice as the OEM rings on my 100-400 and 180 macro. The interior of the ring was lined with very thin paper-like felt that rubbed off immediately. So I never really used it because I was nervous about it breaking with the camera/lens attached and didn't think it held the lens tightly enough to minimize vibration when on the tripod, defeating the point.

Like others here I concluded that the lens is light enough to use hanging off the camera body when a tripod is needed, so I shouldn't have bothered.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 15, 2014)

DigitalDivide said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question, what about the tripod mount ring... Just noticed that it doesn't come with the F4?
> ...



Will check it out. Rotation is not a problem, as my tripod has that option, and that's the way I'm shooting now.


----------



## GAS (Jul 15, 2014)

I went through the same dilemma in the past after I got the Canon 5D mkII, 24-105L. Originally I picked up the 100L as a portrait and macro lens due to the IS feature. Soon after that I picked up the 70-200L f/4 IS for traveling because it is smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 IS II version, and GAS got the better part of me so I sold the f/4 version to finance the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II upgrade.

If you have the money then buy both, but IMHO it is not worth the extra cost specially the extra weight because the f/4 IS is just as sharp, contrasty, and nice background blur as the f/2.8 IS II when both are at f/4. Except that the f/2.8 is faster and can blur the background a bit more because of the wider aperture. And, if you have the bad case of GAS then I would go with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II other wise you will always yearn for the bigger and faster lens.


----------

