# Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?



## GuyF (Jul 20, 2012)

Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.

Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:

1. The f4 is fantastic. It's sharp and light enough that I can carry it around all afternoon in my hand without any bother.
2. The f2.8 is faster and the IS is no doubt better BUT it is almost twice the weight of the f4. 

As I have arms like wet noodles the weight is a slight issue for all-day shooting but not necessarily a deal breaker (I've got the 300mm f2.8 IS too but I don't handhold it all afternoon).

So the real question is: is the f2.8 IQ _significantly_ better than the f4? (The fact it should focus quicker and track better with the 5D3 is also a given).

What should I do?

Thanks for any opinions.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 20, 2012)

Stay with the f/4. Nothing you wrote indicated that you would need the f/2.8. The f/4 performs about the same as the f/2.8. If you shot indoors or in low light and needed the extra stop, then it would be a good reason. Another reason would be for portraiture if you're interested in shallower DOF. If those reasons do not apply to you, save the grand and your arm.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Stay with the f/4. Nothing you wrote indicated that you would need the f/2.8. The f/4 performs about the same as the f/2.8. If you shot indoors or in low light and needed the extra stop, then it would be a good reason. Another reason would be for portraiture if you're interested in shallower DOF. If those reasons do not apply to you, save the grand and your arm.



+1


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.
> 
> Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:
> 
> ...



The f/2.8 is an excellent lens - weight can be sorted with a monopod. I guess it depends on whether you need a fast lens or one with shallow DOF/bg blur

I would not bet on the speed of AF being faster for the f/4


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6



+1 

Plus of course + 1.4 still makes use of f/4 af points


----------



## canon816 (Jul 20, 2012)

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11

Check out SLR Gear reviews on these lenses. Take a look at the Blur Charts that represent IQ.
Surprisingly the f4 lens has slightly better IQ, but with much less weight. Unless you need f2.8... I wouldn't upgrade at all. 

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is. The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2012)

canon816 said:


> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
> 
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11
> 
> ...



I may have the wrong 2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS. There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 20, 2012)

5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = A gift from heaven

If weight is the problem, then get a RS7 strap

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rs7+strap&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 20, 2012)

Unless you plan to shoot wildlife, need the extra low light, or want to use Canon extenders, stick with the F4. The 5DIII can easily make up the light loss by using a higher ISO. Many people think the F/4 is sharper than the F2.8II. It's definately sharper than the F2.8IS but likely just comparable with the F2.8II.

That being said. I often use my 2.8L II with the canon 1.4x and sometimes with the 2X so you get more flexibility with that one but like I said, if you dont really have the need for it, save the money for when the 7D MarkII comes out.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 20, 2012)

canon816 said:


> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
> 
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11
> 
> ...



That's *NOT TRUE*. I used both and 2.8 IS II is *sharper.* 

Have you ever shoot with f2.8? or compared to f4 before?

Dylan


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

I have both. The 2.8 IS II is insanely heavy. The f/4 IS covers the 90-95 percent of my needs and is VERY SHARP!

The IS in theory is exactly the same generation but since the 2.8 is so heavier I cannot steady it.
The result: It seems that the f/4's IS is better! I know it is not and it is just me but the net result is the same.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 20, 2012)

I have a 40D and 5D3 and own the 70-200 F4/IS. I borrowed my buddies 70-200 2.8 IS Mk.2 for a couple of days and while I loved the bokeh, I agree - it is insanely heavy. I would pick up the 5D3/Mk.2 combo and then the 40D/F4 combo and it felt like a toy in comparison.

I didn't do any pixel peeping between the two lenses but I can say that my F4 on the 5D3 is mighty sharp. Unless you need that extra stop then stick with what you have.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 20, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6



This may not be a big factor for the OP since he already has the 300 f/2.8 IS...


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Another advantage of 2.8 could be ext 2.0 allowing you still to auto focus on 400mm @f5.6
> ...



So having already an extender he'd buy for 70-200 2.8, with 300 f2.8 he'd have 600 f5.6  Another good reason!


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?

No no no


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?
> 
> No no no


Relative to the OP's F4. Yes, yes, yes - it is half the weight.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 f/2.8 II - insanely heavy?
> ...



Half the weight of the OP 300 f/2.8

So no no no


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 20, 2012)

I am referring to the OP question about the 70-200 2.8 verses the 4.0


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



You must practice by lifting the 600 f/4 L IS as if is a kind of weight! So the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will feel light comparatively


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

tron said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Jamesy said:
> ...



I regularly have a 3 hour session with the 200 f/2, so the 70-200 f/2.8 is an easy walkabout lens


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## dlleno (Jul 20, 2012)

one has to decide if wider apertures are a must, and when they are a "must" the additional weight just doesn't matter. Sure the f/2.8 is heavier but for me I wouldn't be without it. There are two use cases that are important to me:

1. The f/4 aperture will produce on the order of 50% wider DOF than f/2.8, at least on a 1.6x crop camera, and produces better background blurr. I find that in actual practice I use f/2.8 quite a bit just for that reason, not to mention the extra stop of light.

2. the f/2.8 takes a 1.4x TC well, and the resultant 280mm f/4 is quite good.


----------



## infared (Jul 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
> ...



I can say this..I owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. After reading the reviews...I sold it and bought the II model. THe II is soooooooooooooooooo sharp I am completely WOW'ED every time I use the lens. I think that this lens is like having primes. It is AMAZING! Couple that with increased light gathering and faster AF with improved IS....it certainly is worth the money. I was very happy that I made the trade...I do not mind this size and weight because all of the increased performance.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 21, 2012)

I own the F4 IS and agree that the 2.8 II is a killer lens. For the few days I had it, it was amazing. That said, the weight trade-off between the F4 and the F2.8 has me leaning towards the F4. IMHO, there is no question the F2.8 is better all around but at a cost, in this case $$$ and weight and bulk.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 21, 2012)

Go to The Digital Picture, and look in "TOOLS" and do a lens comparison for sharpness. It is a really interesting time-suck educational resource.  You can compare ISO 12233 shots side-by-side with LOTS of different lenses, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, LensBaby, etc.. You can adjust the aperature and the focal length on both lenses you are comparing. You can even compare lenses using the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, though it is not readily apparent how to do it. Just jack the focal distance beyond the lens's native length, and you automatically get to test out the teleconverters! 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx

Hopefully this does not get me banned on CR or anything (ha).


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 21, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx


OT but I thought I would thank ScottP for the link above - Amazing little tool. It solved a question I had between my 70-200 F4 IS and my 24-105 F4 IS. I checked both at F4/5.6/8,0 and 70mm and the 70-200 is markedly sharper at these apertures. I shot with the 17-55 on my 40D for four years and somehow I am finding the 24-105 a little soft in comparison. I have not done any micro adjustment, maybe I should. I am considering having Canon look at it when I send in the5D3 to fix the light leak issue.


----------



## birtembuk (Jul 21, 2012)

Like you, it took me some time before final decision between the both. Weight was my issue too. The f/2.8 is a killer lens. A boon. Superlative stuff. Apart from the bigger whites, one of the few that makes you stick w/ Canon forever. Actually, I don't get it when people say that one more f stop can be compensated by one more iso. Then, why not go for 5.6 since iso can be bumped up more and more these days ? Doesn't makes sense to me. It's not only more light, it's about flexibility, oof, beauty and more. Actually, I almost only shoot at 2.8 and this baby is razor sharp at 2.8 across the whole focal and picture. As for weight, compared with 300 it's a breeze. Besides, weight gives more momentum and somehow helps stabilize the grip. For what this lens gives me, the weight doesn't bother me at all. Add to that a 1.4X for only f4 and it's absolute winner. You'd have to cut my hand to snatch it from me !

If you still hesitate, just tell yourself that 2.8 and 4 have the same price per kg...


----------



## Act444 (Jul 21, 2012)

Having had both lenses (well, used to have the 4, traded up to the 2.8 which I have now), I find both equally sharp/impressive. As to which one you should go for, well, it depends on your use. I upgraded mine since I found myself using it more indoors than out, shooting special events and the like. With the 60D, I found I was really reaching the limits of the F4 model indoors (I hate using flash) so once I had the $$, I decided to trade it in for the 2.8 version. Don't regret the move one bit. Pros: same high level of performance, extra stop, quieter IS operation; Cons: extra weight & bulk (arm hurts after shooting continuously for an hour), price

Ultimately for outdoor tele shooting I got myself the 70-300L, which effectively replaced what I used to use the 70-200 f4 for. Much lighter than the 2.8 and has 100mm extra reach so it's great for outdoor daytime shooting when I don't want (or need) to carry around the extra weight.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 21, 2012)

Double the weight matters a lot in 747's or locomotives. In lenses, they are relevant but not nearly so much so. 
What matters is your use. If you ever want to shoot someone's kids playing indoor basketball/volleyball/etc., the f/4 will be a hinderance. 
If you shoot in big halls/wedding reception places indoors, you may find f/4 a problem. 
If you hate artificial lighting, f/4 could be a hassle.


If none of these things apply, then it will be rare that you will need to shoot basic indoor shots at @200mm w/o added lighting.


----------



## SteenerMe (Jul 21, 2012)

The 70-200IS II is the best lens ive ever used. If you want the absolute best then thats where its at. When comparing pics on dpreview type sites you must remember that those are under ideal conditions. I dont know about you but when i shoot the conditions are anything but ideal. This being said the 2.8Is II gives me the most consistant results even in the hardest situations. The weight you get used to, but the high amount of keepers never gets old to me. If you can afford it get it. You have onebof the best bodys, why not pair it with the best glass. With the new af tracking and IS on the lens you can freeze anything sharp.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 21, 2012)

I upgraded from 70-200 F4L IS USM to 70-200 F2.8L IS USM II 1.5 years ago and have not regretted it. I did like the F4 version a lot for its comparably light weight and compact size but I do value the extra stop more. Both lenses are among the sharpest zooms I have used.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 21, 2012)

canon816 said:


> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
> 
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11
> 
> ...



Those links are to the f/2.8 IS USM mk 1, and the mk 2 should be optically superior to the mk 1.

Anyway, the f/4 IS USM is, from experience, an excellent lens. The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.

A tripod gets a similar response. One time I shot a building next to occupy someplace, and one of the protesters just stood up in front of the camera and started preaching. Telling her I was sent there to shoot for a news segment about construction code violations made her leave so fast I didn't have to make up any more details.


----------



## candyman (Jul 21, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> The extra size & weight of the f/2.8 IS USM mk II are noticeable by my muscle, as well as people around, including a few who just approached me and asked which TV station I'm working for.




 +1 
That happened to me as well. Asking for what sportsmagazine I work. What a disappointment to them when I told them the photo's will not show up in any magazine. LOL


----------



## GuyF (Jul 21, 2012)

All,

Many thanks for all the replies. It just underlines what a terrific resource this forum is - post a query in the evening and next morning there are 3 pages of opinions! Plus nobody resorted to name calling!

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result? 

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....


----------



## Gothmoth (Jul 21, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I may have the wrong 2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS. There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.



well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible. 




GuyF said:


> Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....



the main advantage of the f4 is weight.

i shoot landscapes with my 70-200 f4 most of the time (means hiking and travelling)
i rarely ever want to use the 70-200 lens at something faster then f5.6.

when i want to do portraits or something with a narrow DOF i use my fast prime lenses (85mm f1.2 or 135 f2).

70-200 f4 + 85mm f1.2 = 1785g in my kata backpack
70-200 f2.8 II + 85mm f1.2 = 2515g in my kata backpack

that´s why i have the 70-200mm f4 and not the f2.8.
it´s lightweight and fits my needs... your mileage may vary.

the 70-200 f2.8 II is sure a fantastic allrounder.
and the corner sharpness is impressive.


----------



## Greatland (Jul 21, 2012)

If you are primarily an outdoor shooter the f4 should suffice. If you are shooting indoor, or in low light, the decision to go with the 2.8 is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion. Indoor sports photographers all have this lens and there is a reason. Plus the version II is a sharper and better lense, period....of course cost and weight are a lot different as well.


----------



## Menace (Jul 21, 2012)

"So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result? "

Keep flipping the coin until you land on f2.8 II - simple


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jul 21, 2012)

Both lenses are masterpieces by Canon. Arguing about what lense has the edge to me doesn't makes sense. F/2.8 can be an tremendous advantage. But since you already have the 300 f/2.8 this should not weigh too heavy. A lense is a tool. Not to be restricted by the weight when it comes to shooting over a longer period of time to me is quite important, too.


----------



## Cali_PH (Jul 21, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.
> 
> So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?



I used to use pennies, but once I switched to nickels I haven't looked back. Sure, they weigh a lot more, but you can do more with them and the quality difference is amazing. Plus once I started using quarters, I hardly notice the weight difference. Compare for yourself:

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Penny

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Nickel


----------



## GuyF (Jul 21, 2012)

Cali_PH said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.
> ...



Hey Cali, those sites are fantastic! Things are much clearer now but I only have access to UK currency though I do think I've got a US quarter somewhere.

There must be a site out there that converts flipped US coins to UK sterling....

Found it!

http//www.Flippin'marvellousUStoUKconversions.com/toomuchtimeonyourhands

Oh thank you internet!


----------



## GuyF (Jul 21, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I may have the wrong 2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS. There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.
> ...




Gothmoth,

Pretty similar position to you but use the Sigma 85 f1.4 for portraits. Looks like I might keep the f4.

Guy.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 23, 2012)

Guy, stop for a moment, relax, breathe.

Before selling your current zoom or buying another, consider keeping your zoom and getting a 135 f2 to provide amazing speed and bokeh at the middle of your current zoom range.






135 f2L 1/800 @ f2

It's light weight, super fast, sharp and mch less conspicuous than any of the great whites. It is perfect for posed or candid portraits, indoors and out.


----------



## GuyF (Jul 23, 2012)

IIIHobbs,

Sage words indeed however I don't feel I need another lens in that particular range. My Sigma 85mm f1.4 takes care of all the bokeh a man needs plus I can walk closer to my subject if required. 

I also have the option of the 24-105mm too; not fast by any stretch but it offers a useful range.

My reasoning behind the potential change to the f2.8 was the (likely) improvement in IQ (not that the f4 is lacking in this area) coupled with the benefit of the 5D3's focus accuracy with wider aperture lenses.

I'm sure your suggestion will give others an often overlooked lens to consider.

Guy.


----------



## K-amps (Jul 23, 2012)

I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one. 

It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.

The f2.8 is fluid , soft and dreamy (and sharp) while the F4 is clinical and analytical and cold. Yes these are adjectives used for Audio, but they fit perfectly here. I can take many lenses and shoot portraits, but the ones people pick out as their favs is the F2.8 mk.ii. There is no lens that gets me the “Ooohs” and “Ahhhs” like the f2.8 does. (Granted I have not used the 135 f2 yet)

There is a quality of the f2.8 mk.ii that cannot be quantified, it is just amazingly beautiful, creamy…. Dreamy.


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 23, 2012)

I recently got the f2.8 IS II and while I intended to sell my f4 IS, I actually still have it and probably won't sell it now. I generally consider the much lighter f4 IS to be my casual, travel and hiking telezoom of choice, while the 2.8 IS II gets all indoor and event duties. In other words, unless I need the extra stop or shallower DOF, I choose the f4 IS.

The 2.8 II is obviously more practical for extenders.

Between my copies of the lenses, I can't discern any practical IQ difference. I suppose I could test them both in a controlled environment but my view is that if you have to do that to see any difference, then the difference is irrelevant.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 23, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO NO NO. I was referring to the poster who said the f/4 was sharper than the f/2.8. Personally I don't care, because you're right, in real life there isn't any difference.


----------



## GuyF (Jul 23, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one.
> 
> It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.
> 
> ...




K-amps,

Aha, one man's "clinical and analytical and cold" is another man's truthful uncoloured accuracy. To stick with the audio analogy, tubes or transistors?? There is much to be said for both (I'd maybe guess your "K" stands for Krell - if so, do I win a coconut?).

You may have tripped yourself up; "soft and dreamy (and sharp)". Hmmm, a bit like a red-hot ice cube? 

I certainly can't justify having both (this from the man who once had Audio Research _and_ Conrad Johnson pre-amps at the same time just so I could have butterscotch or peppermint as the mood took me).

Of course all this still hinges on a colleague wanting to buy my f4. If not, it's all a bit moot.

Oh when will this nightmare end?


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 23, 2012)

You could always rent a 2.8 Mk.II and try it out next to your 4.0 IS and judge for yourself. That si what I did and decided to keep my 4.0 IS , 85/1.8 and 135/F2. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date though... Oh wait, that last answer is reserved for my wife


----------



## vuilang (Jul 23, 2012)

is the IS 2.8II feel that heavy?? I have it but never feel the weight unless i carry 2 camera and the 2.8isII is dangling.


----------



## dlleno (Jul 24, 2012)

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 II is sharper. whether or not that difference is noticable or important is up to you

with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 will likey focus faster, although I haven't heard any complaints about the f/4 AF at f/5.6 with TC. I get amazing fast AF on mine, but again whether or not any difference is noticable or important, is up to you. 

without TC, the f/2.8 II should have an AF advantage, but I've never heard of the f/4 coming up short of anyone's expectations and since I've never shot with the f/4 I can't confirm it. 

I CAN confirm IS on the f/2.8 II is simply outstanding. 1/15th second handheld at 200mm is not unreasonable. seriously.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2012)

dlleno said:


> I CAN confirm IS on the f/2.8 II is simply outstanding. 1/15th second handheld at 200mm is not unreasonable. seriously.



Try *0.5 s* at 95mm. Free held, not braced or rested against anything.




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 95mm, 1/2 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2012)

dlleno said:


> with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 II is sharper. whether or not that difference is noticable or important is up to you
> 
> with 1.4x attached, the f/2.8 will likey focus faster, although I haven't heard any complaints about the f/4 AF at f/5.6 with TC. I get amazing fast AF on mine, but again whether or not any difference is noticable or important, is up to you.
> 
> ...


I can also confirm that IS on the f/4L IS is also outstanding. Since it is a light lens it is very easy to hold it steady...


----------



## dlleno (Jul 24, 2012)

I find the weight of the f/2.8 II to be an advantage, but that could be just me. Nice work *neuroanatomist * I happen to appreciate and greatly respect blurred waterfalls  especially handheld ones -- this takes more than a casual attention to technique, IS notwithstanding. I do suspect when you factor in the advantage of a FF and the shorter focal length, your conditions are similar to 1/15th at 200mm on a 1.6x crop body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2012)

dlleno said:


> Nice work *neuroanatomist * I happen to appreciate and greatly respect blurred waterfalls  especially handheld ones -- this takes more than a casual attention to technique, IS notwithstanding.



Thanks!

Indeed, technique matters. Even without IS, you can take relatively long exposures. Here's one with the 35L, no tripod - I rested the camera on the railing of a pedestrian bridge for the shot, it's a *2.5 s* exposure.




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 2.5 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## K-amps (Jul 24, 2012)

GuyF said:


> K-amps,
> 
> Aha, one man's "clinical and analytical and cold" is another man's truthful uncoloured accuracy. To stick with the audio analogy, tubes or transistors?? There is much to be said for both (I'd maybe guess your "K" stands for Krell - if so, do I win a coconut?).
> 
> ...



You my friend have indeed won the Coconut, in the 10_years that I have had this handle, no one could have guessed that the K does indeed stand for "Krell" and the Amps is thus a no brainer. 

I would not keep both lenses, agreed. The f2.8 is still truthfull, but yes it is more like Tubes while the F4 is more like transistors. (I like both by the way). However, you can stop down the F2.8 and get it to act more like the F4... and for a guy that owned CJ's and AR's at the same time, I am sure a little bit of weight is not going to be a deal breaker is it?

Lastly: Prior to owning it, I came up with every logical reasoning to get the F4, it makes just more sense... but having owned the F2.8, I would never go back and I love almost all the shots I take with it... Having owned this, I can tell you that it is worth so much more than the price it is available for, it is like having 130 primes rolled into 1 !


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 25, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.
> 
> Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:
> 
> ...




Here's a thought: you already have a fast 300. Why not keep the f4 and add another fast prime instead? 135L come to mind.

I opted to forgo any big white 70-200 zoom and bought the 135L and 200 2.8LII instead. Never looked back.


----------



## Joes Dad (Jul 25, 2012)

For what its worth, in my view, the f/4 is fantastic. The f/2.8 II is fantasticer.  The weight is worth it in every respect. I only consider my 200 f/2.0 to be sharper.


----------



## GuyF (Jul 25, 2012)

All,

Many thanks for the opinions. I should be able to briefly try the f2.8 II in a day or so. I won't be able to do much more than a rudimentary comparrison with the f4 but it's better than nothing.

K-amps: I might have had CJ and ARC gear but I didn't have to lug it around with me all day! Hmmm, 130 f2.8 primes in one? Now you're talking!

Stay tuned....

Guy.


----------



## GuyF (Jul 26, 2012)

Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.

My (admittedly limited) findings:

1. The f2.8 is much more substantial in size/weight than the f4. The f4 is quite dinky in comparison! As I often use the 70-200mm as an "always in the hand rather than on a strap walk-about" lens I'm conscious of the fact the added weight would be an issue after a while. Hand cramp is a cruel mistress. (Cue comments about the best strap to use.)

2. Focusing with the f2.8 was _maybe_ a bit quicker but not definitive. We're talking tiny fractions of a second here and my perception - you want to believe a newer, more expensive lens will focus quicker.

3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.

4. Colour - both allow you to take colour images  No obvious fringing horrors. Both were good enough for me (I'm going through the obligatory convert-everything-to-black-and-white phase).

5. IS on the f2.8 is much quieter than the f4. Shhhh!

6. The f4 has more vignetting (duh!) but nothing that would ruin any shot. The miracles of modern software can cure many ailments.

So I reckon the f2.8 at twice the price and twice the weight is not necessarily twice the lens. However if I couldn't live without that wider aperture I wouldn't shed a tear as I parted with the money. The f2.8 is very good but not essential to me. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in transit. Offer void in Utah.

At least now I can put that money aside for the 42mp 1D XMF due in Feb 2013 (oops, did anyone see a cat getting out of a bag?).

If you feel strongly that I've missed a point or my opinions are complete poop, I reserve the right to ignore you!


----------



## Fleetie (Jul 26, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.
> 
> My (admittedly limited) findings:
> 
> ...



3 : Based on the samples of each lens that I've owned, I'd agree. Others will probably lambast you for saying it, though. Expect some heat!

6: Why "Duh!"? I'd expect more vignetting from the f/2.8 version. But vignetting does not bother me, so I haven't paid any attention to it.

As for reserving the right to ignore those who consider your opinions poopy, well good on you! You've gone out there, done some tests, and arrived at a conclusion, rather than just relying on web reviews and the opinions of people like me. Can't argue with that.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 26, 2012)

I own the F4 IS and have shot with the F2.8 IS and can afford the Big Boy of I wanted but have stuck with the F4 for reasons previously stated. Weight and size. I have a 135L for those times I need reach and speed. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 27, 2012)

I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 27, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.


By speed do you mean speed of AF or the 2.8 being 'faster' than the 4.0?


----------



## canon816 (Jul 28, 2012)

GuyF said:


> 3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.



Hahah. I said that the f4 was slightly sharper early on in this thread... and I quickly got several heated responses about how incorrect I was. Interesting that you saw this as well.... AFMA could have something to do with it, but as long as you were looking at the "in focus" part of the image for comparison then you are all set.

Also.... the difference in sharpness is splitting hairs. Both are painfully sharp lenses. My reason for bringing up that the f4 was sharper was not to get into a debate about which lens was sharper, but rather that at half the price (if you don't need f2.8 ) the f4 will make just as great of an image.

Enjoy your new lens....


----------



## Mistah.vega (Aug 3, 2012)

I have the 70-200 f/4 non is and I just picked up the f/2.8 non is, I have 7d & 5dmkii, the f/4 is a great lense. Do you really think the f/2.8 is necessary? I haven't used the f/2.8 much but I haven't been wowed. Thinking about returning to B&H and getting the fisheye zoom. Does anyone have an opinion on this? 

Thanks


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 3, 2012)

I feel that anyone advising your to stay with the F4 may be ill advising you. You should rent one for a job or a few days and try it out. This is one lens i never regret spending the extra for. It is an unbelievable combo with the 5D3. Esp anything that involves fast focusing, or where you have to step away from the front-line. It is probably the best zoom out there ANY BRAND incl nokin. The stand out you get as well with F2.8 cannot compare to F4. WHen every i shoot with my 24-105 i severely miss the extra stop. I have carried 5D3+70-200 combo for 5 hrs at a time shooing, I am 5'6" with small arms. And i dont have a problem with it.


----------



## Menace (Aug 3, 2012)

I traded in my 70-200 f4 non IS for 70-200 f2.8 IS II two days ago, paired with my 5d III - all I can say is ;D 

Would like to write more but I'm going out to shoot.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 3, 2012)

Menace said:


> I traded in my 70-200 f4 non IS for 70-200 f2.8 IS II two days ago, paired with my 5d III - all I can say is ;D
> 
> Would like to write more but I'm going out to shoot.



How much did you have to add?


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 3, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.
> ...



Just that combo period, an incredible match.


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 3, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.



Honestly i dont know how you can compare these two lenses. There is a huge difference between F2.8 and F4. Most of my shots with this lens are shot at F2.8. Its so damn pleasing. WHen you shoot with the 70-200 you are usually about 20 or more feet away from the subject and your main desire is to have your subject lifted from its surroundings. I hardly ever try to soot a scene or a large group where i want everything in focus with this lens. I would never trade the 2.8 option for 4.0 at these FLs. Now with the wider ranges, I chose to go with the 24-105 F4 instead of the much more expensive 24-70 2.8 options.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Having recently moved from a 40D to a 5D3 I'm possibly in the position where I can sell my current 70-200 f4 IS to a colleague and get a f2.8 IS mk2.
> 
> Whilst I've read about all I can about the f2.8, I still need some convincing:
> 
> ...



Keep the F/4 70-200. 

If you'd like, you could add a 100mm F/2 or 135 F/2L to your bag when you need the extra 2 Stops of speed. These lenses are not too expensive either.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 3, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the F4 on the 40D and it's no comparison against the 2.8II paired up with the 5DIII. IQ is close but not in speed.
> ...



Exactly, the 2.8 most definately has the 'pop'. For wide I'm using the 16-35II now, but waiting for the 24-70II to arrive.


----------

