# 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS



## shivac77 (Nov 18, 2013)

Hi Friends,

I am in little bit dilemma to but 70-200 F 2.8 IS and its coming with good discounted price on several web sites.
But I currently own 70-200mm F4 IS. Also I am a hobbyist and not professional. Is it worth for me when I upgrade, with respective to lens quality and the price I am spending on F2.8? Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Thanks In Adv,
Shiv


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

Real-world image quality is not very different, the slight edge the f/2.8 has in the lab is hard to detect in normal shooting.

The real question is, do you need f/2.8? If you are shooting action in low light, or shooting a lot of portraits, then it is certainly quite useful. Besides the cost, it is a substantially larger and heavier lens.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 18, 2013)

shivac77 said:


> Hi Friends,
> 
> I am in little bit dilemma to but 70-200 F 2.8 IS and its coming with good discounted price on several web sites.
> But I currently own 70-200mm F4 IS. Also I am a hobbyist and not professional. Is it worth for me when I upgrade, with respective to lens quality and the price I am spending on F2.8? Your responses are greatly appreciated.
> ...



Well, it really depends on what you will use it for...

The f/2.8's faster aperture means that you can get thinner depth of field, resulting in more of that background blur many like. It is also better for low light and fast action.

But, the f/2.8 is *much* heavier than the f/4, to the extent it may be uncomfortable to use for some. If you were hiking, for instance, I would not recommend the f/2.8 unless you needed the utmost quality. On the other hand, if you liked to shoot indoor sports and at weddings a lot, then the 2.8 is worth it IMO.

There is no doubt the f/2.8 has the clear edge, the question is whether the times you'd use it would necessitate the extra weight and size that comes with it. If you are just using it for a hobby and just want a telephoto zoom with no other real stipulations, you'll probably like the f/4 better.

Personally, I like to recommend the 70-300/f4-5.6L for casual use and the 70-200/f2.8L for more serious use. The former is lighter and smaller plus has more reach, while the latter is faster but heavier. If you can afford both that's a sweet combo! The 70-200/f4 is a bit lighter and faster than the 70-300 but it is also longer and has less range.


----------



## sunnyVan (Nov 18, 2013)

I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait. I find this way for flexible for my purposes.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Firstly, I have to say I am a hobbyist. I have owned the 70-200mm F4L IS and currently own the 70-200mm f2.8L II.
If you shoot portraits, dim light and fast action then go for the f2.8 version, because of bokeh, large aperture and AF speed but, otherwise I suggest going to the 70-200 f4 IS instead. f4 is lighter and is as sharp as the f2.8 version and on top you'll save some big $$.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 19, 2013)

What do you mainly want to use it for? If you need to freeze action in lower light, keep noise down in lower light, or want focus to be as shallow as possible for any given focal length, you're better off with 2.8. Otherwise there's little, if any, discernible difference in image quality; but there's a vast difference in weight and size (I would hate to carry around the 2.8 all day). 

Note, too, that while the 2.8 has shallower focus at any given focal length, it doesn't always have the most attractive bokeh (depending on what's in the background and how far the subject is from it); and that you can reduce depth of focus by other means of that's what you want - e.g. on the 70-200 f/4, use a longer focal length and/or get closer. And if you're willing to try that, you may want to consider an alternative lens: For instance, depending on relative distances etc. you can get superb isolation, background blur and bokeh by using the 70-300L at the longer end of its range where it gets no faster than 5.6. Of course, the framing and composition etc. won't be the same, and this isn't a good solution for freezing action, but depending on what you want to do this may be worth considering too - it may even be preferable (esp. if your camera is FF).


----------



## fegari (Nov 19, 2013)

I have both and as many have, I've agonized over the issue before getting the 2.8II. IQ is pretty much the same on both, obviously from F4 onwards and obvioulsly you get more flexibility with the 2.8 for the reasons explained above. That extra stop is a great thing to have, whatever high ISO cameras exist now, it is always a plus.

Asuming money is not a big driver in the desicion, this was my rationale:

If you consider/want to be able to shoot (also) some wildlife without going for a dedicated lens, get the 2.8 that can use the 1.4 and 2x extenders, big versatility value here and IQ won't dissapoint, even with the 2x it is more than acceptable with good light. You get basically a 70-400 (f2.8 - f5.6)

If portrait is your thing, I'd say get the 2.8II, here I think there is a real visible differnce btw f4 and f2.8


If you value more the size and weight, then the F4. Significant weight difference here and the F4 is still more than usable with the 1.4x by the way. Being limited to 280mm in such case you get "only" a 70-280 (f4 - 5.6)


In my case, I value more the possibility of putting the 2x extender whenever I need to than the weight penalty while travelling, therefore I'm selling the F4. FInally, the 2.8 comes with the tripod mount ring for free, a night and day change whenever you use the tripod, logically.

Good luck with teh choice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Personally, I like to recommend the 70-300/f4-5.6L for casual use and the 70-200/f2.8L for more serious use. The former is lighter and smaller plus has more reach, while the latter is faster but heavier. If you can afford both that's a sweet combo! The 70-200/f4 is a bit lighter and faster than the 70-300 but it is also longer and has less range.



+1 I have both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 70-300L, I use the former for portraits and events and the latter for travel and family outings.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 19, 2013)

FWIW, I've had the f/4 is for a while (years) and it is absolutely great. My f/2.8 ii arrives today (it is on the FedEx truck). My friend used my f/4 in 2010 when we were on a trip together, then went home and bought a 2.8. She still blames me for starting her on the slippery slope of lens purchases.

Recently, while in Denali, she had her 20-200 f/2.8ii with her and I tried her lens. Even though it is bigger and heavier than it's little brother, the added speed and hence the ability to add a TC if needed while still preserving pretty quick focusing won me over. 'nuff said, that started the urge (?need) to get one and the recent "double dip" exceeded the price threshold I'd set for myself.

My budget allows for the Bill Me Later payments over 6 months and the f/4 is long paid for. For now, I m keeping both. When I travel and trek, weight can add up. If I find the new one being used and the old one gathering dust, I'll sell it then. I don't see the 70-200 f/4 IS losing value, it is still a wonderful lens.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 19, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> FWIW, I've had the f/4 is for a while (years) and it is absolutely great. My f/2.8 ii arrives today (it is on the FedEx truck). My friend used my f/4 in 2010 when we were on a trip together, then went home and bought a 2.8. She still blames me for starting her on the slippery slope of lens purchases.
> 
> Recently, while in Denali, she had her 20-200 f/2.8ii with her and I tried her lens. Even though it is bigger and heavier than it's little brother, the added speed and hence the ability to add a TC if needed while still preserving pretty quick focusing won me over. 'nuff said, that started the urge (?need) to get one and the recent "double dip" exceeded the price threshold I'd set for myself.
> 
> My budget allows for the Bill Me Later payments over 6 months and the f/4 is long paid for. For now, I m keeping both. When I travel and trek, weight can add up. If I find the new one being used and the old one gathering dust, I'll sell it then. I don't see the 70-200 f/4 IS losing value, it is still a wonderful lens.



I agree one should have a lighter backup telephoto to the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM, because that lens might be too heavy for travelling or hiking. Some good options include the long but light 70-200 f/4L IS USM, or the short but medium weight 70-300/f4-5.6L IS USM. Hopefully in 2014 they will update the 70-300 non-L with a design comparable to the L's optics (or at least up to par with the 55-250 STM) so we can have both short and light - perfect for travel... The current ones (both non-L IS and DO IS) are optically pretty terrible over 200mm.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Nov 19, 2013)

i don't own either, but i've rented the 70-200 2.8 ii multiple times. all i can say is that when i use that bad boy, almost all of my shots are at 2.8, and god lord they are amazing. granted, i use it for weddings, so i'm using it in low light/high movement situations, so i need the fastest shutter speed i can get. i have a 5d3, and i don't mind pushing the ISO up to 6400, but smaller than 2.8 is still usually too slow.

the 2.8 version is my favorite lens that i have ever used. the sharpness, contrast, colors, bokeh, and focal length make it an incredible lens. for me personally i wouldn't have much use for the f/4 version, but if the quality is the same as the 2.8, if you don't need 2.8, and price is an issue, then go for the f/4.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 19, 2013)

I've never triwd the f/4, but I've understood it's a very good lens as other members arw saying here. But the f/2.8 is something special. It's what lenses are about, it has it all. Unfortunately also a hefty price tag and weight, but if you can overcome that I'd recommend it and congratulate you. It makes me happy every time I use it and it never lets me down.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 19, 2013)

I've owned both and the image quality is pretty much even in real-world use. The IS seems a bit better in the 2.8 and the build quality of both is great, but whereas the 4 feels tough, the 2.8 feels like it could survive battle. The 2.8 is MUCH bigger than the 4 and much more conspicuous. It takes up a surprising amount of room in your bag as well. The 2.8 comes with a tripod ring, the 4 does not.

If you value shoot portraits, sports, or wildlife in low/poor light, the 2.8 is worth the added cost, size, and weight. If you primarily shoot landscapes or other photos at f/8 or above, carry gear long distances, value being relatively discrete, the 4 is probably better.

When I picked up the 2.8, I thought I'd hang onto my 4, but after it collected dust for a few months, I sold it. For me the size and weight weren't deal breakers, but each person has their own needs.


----------



## InterMurph (Nov 19, 2013)

Don't forget about focus speed.

I owned a f/4 version, and used it for youth sports. I sold it and bought the f/2.8 version, and its improved focus speed has made all the difference.

Its extra weight has also made a different; it's hard to use for an hour straight. But I think it's definitely worth it.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 19, 2013)

InterMurph said:


> Don't forget about focus speed.
> 
> I owned a f/4 version, and used it for youth sports. I sold it and bought the f/2.8 version, and its improved focus speed has made all the difference.
> 
> Its extra weight has also made a different; it's hard to use for an hour straight. But I think it's definitely worth it.


I think that may have more to do with the body it's used on - I haven't noticed much difference at all in AF performance, other than low light level work. Maybe others can share their experiences, but on my 5DII and 5DIII, I didn't notice much if any difference.


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 19, 2013)

keithfullermusic said:


> the 2.8 version is my favorite lens that i have ever used.



The TRUTH right there


----------



## ksagomonyants (Nov 19, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait. I find this way for flexible for my purposes.



+1. You can also get 100 f2.8L Macro instead of 135 f2 if you need image stabilization.

Another option for you can be Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens. I don't own it but the reviews are pretty good. And it includes 6(!) years of manufacturer's warranty and it's $769 on B&H.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 20, 2013)

I used the 4 for a couple of years and it's a great lens. Loved it.

But - there came a point where I needed that extra stop and it was time to step up. Too many events I was shooting called for a telephoto lens indoors. Struggled with ISO at f4 (on 1.6x)...traded up to the 2.8 and don't regret it one bit. In fact, that is one of my most frequently used lenses especially now with an FF camera. Yes, the extra weight can be burdensome (even somewhat painful at times) but when I look at the pics afterward, I know that it was totally worth it!


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 20, 2013)

One last thought. Got home tonite and unboxed my new lens. Just playing with this indoors in existing light, I am "wowed" by the clarity. The IS is virtually silent. At 2.8, hand-held at 200mm with long exposures, I am impressed. And the narrow DOF! I still plan to hold on to the f/4 for a while.

OK, I am done now. But, I am really glad I went for it. Oh, and the "pinch" lenscap ain't so bad either.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 20, 2013)

It is not only about the length, or the Aperture or the sharpness or any other static spec.... rather the fact that shots taken with the 70-200 F2.8 mk.II, are just drop dead gorgeous.... instantly your shots are just better. hard to explain...

I am a hobbyist myself... and not a rich man, but after knowing what I know about the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, I'd be ok paying $4000 for this lens if I had to do it over again... (can't say that about my 24-70 f.2.8 mk.ii)... 

The bokeh is great, the contrast is great, the colors palpable, the shots breathtaking...

How will you put a price one that?


----------



## bycostello (Nov 20, 2013)

how much cash you got? if you can afford it then sure why not....


----------



## Zen (Nov 20, 2013)

I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Zen ;D


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 21, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> One last thought. Got home tonite and unboxed my new lens. Just playing with this indoors in existing light, I am "wowed" by the clarity. The IS is virtually silent. At 2.8, hand-held at 200mm with long exposures, I am impressed. And the narrow DOF! I still plan to hold on to the f/4 for a while.
> 
> OK, I am done now. But, I am really glad I went for it. Oh, and the "pinch" lenscap ain't so bad either.



Congrats.

P.S. centre-pinch FTW!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 21, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I agonized over the same issue before. My conclusion is to keep my telezoom f4 and use 135L when I want the best portrait. I find this way for flexible for my purposes.
> ...



I know th OP has already made his purchase so this is just for others' interest... The Tamron is a very capable lens which offers similar IQ to the Canon 70-200mm IS II on the wide end but at "200mm" it is not that sharp when shooting at f/2.8. I've found that the focal range is somewhat overstated, and the Tamron is more like 70-190mm. There are also other shortcomings like no AF-range-limit switches and VC is simply on or off. Although there are no IS-variations like on the Canon system, I don't find it such a problem. Tamron's VC system seems to work fine for my needs. 

Anyway, if you are on a budget then I have no hesitation in recommending the Tamron, as it is good value for money and is backed by a solid warranty, but don't believe sites like DXOmark that say it is superior to the Canon 2.8 IS-II it simply isn't.


----------



## rs (Nov 21, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> but don't believe sites like DXOmark


Does anyone? ;D


----------



## sunnyVan (Nov 21, 2013)

Zen said:


> I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?
> 
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
> 
> Zen ;D



Never heard of that. Even if true, the price must be outrageous.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

Zen said:


> I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?



I think you are approaching this issue in the wrong order. The right question is, what is it that this lens is not great at? Unless there are any major issues that need a fix, an update is extremely unlikely. The 70-200 f/4L IS is an extremely popular lens which sells very well.


----------



## Zen (Nov 21, 2013)

Thanks Sunny and JR for your replies. 

I have no complaints about the 2.8. When I got it, I didn't think I would need the 4, so sold it. But now, because of the weight of the 2.8, I wish I had not sold the smaller one. So I was trying to decide if I should replace the one I sold with a current copy or wait for a possible upgrade. But I liked the clarity and sharpness of the 4, so I've decided to just go ahead and get the current one. I plan to keep my 2.8 as well, using it when I can easily use my tripod, but going with the f4 for walking around. 

My only problem with the 2.8 is that it is too heavy to carry easily . . .

Thanks again for sharing your opinions.

Zen ;D


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 21, 2013)

I own the 2.8 II but have used the F4.
Both are great. Of all my lens I think the 2.8 is the best .
It's absolutely brilliant for sports and for portraits. 
The F4 is way lighter and cheaper and very very good. You will love it but maybe crave the 2.8
The 2.8 will either give you big muscles or a repetitive strain injury.
But it's wonderful and even after 2 years it hasn't lost its appeal .
I have the 85mm II and I wouldn't rate it anywhere near as good.
It's too tricky at times whereas the 70-200mm always comes up trumps.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 21, 2013)

I delayed and tried the f/2.8 twice before finally switching. Eventually, I sold the f/4 IS because it wasn't being used. I did it only because I managed to get the f/2.8 version for $1600.

I do quite a bit of very low light shooting where ISO 12800 and higher is often needed at f/2.8, so now my primes are getting little use.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 22, 2013)

Zen said:


> My only problem with the 2.8 is that it is too heavy to carry easily . . .



Carrying it for a couple of hours is perfectly fine for me. It's for the longer treks that I have retained the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2013)

From an L standpoint, I started with the f/2.8 but have both now. I traded my 70-300mm non-L plus cash for the f/4. If I could only have one, no question I pick the f/2.8. If hiking 5 miles or less, the size & weight of the f/2.8 has not been a problem. (Age 66). Unlike another post, I find the AF speed of the 2.8 significantly faster. Both lenses work well with the 1.4X TC III, but of course the 2X TC only works with the 2.8 on most bodies. For BIF the 400mm f/5.6 is drastically better at maintaining focus lock. On the other hand for more general wildlife, the 2X TC is ok, and maintains IS and a close minimum focus distance.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2013)

Zen said:


> I sold my F4 a while ago - to get the 2.8, and now wish I had the F4 back. I'm contemplating buying another copy, but someone said there may be a Mk II version coming quite soon. Does anyone know if we can expect a 70-200 F4 MARK II in the near future? If so, how would it differ from the current version?
> 
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
> 
> Zen ;D


There are a lot of lenses which need updating long before a 70-200F4 IS is considered. The IQ is almost as good as the F2.8 version and it is sharper than several primes..... This is one of the best price/performance lenses out there from anyone. It is possible to improve on it, but not by very much. I would not wait around for a version 2 of the lens as you will probably be waiting for ten or more years....


----------



## clartephoto (Jan 2, 2014)

I started with the 70-200 f/4L IS. I had to get it calibrated and took me some time getting used to it, but after that it was an absolute workhorse - remarkable lens.

I then got a 200 f/2L IS - the difference at 200mm between f/2 and f/4 is night and day.

I got tired of carrying the 200 f/2L IS on hikes and trips etc. so I decided to get a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

But unfortunately, I was disappointed with the 2.8 IS II. I thought it would be a "halfway point" between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 200 f/2L IS, but unfortunately the reality was the 200 f/2L IS at f/4 has more smoother backgrounds than the 70-200 f/2.8 does at f/2.8! 

Consequently, in my mind now it feels like I have a 70-200 f/4L IS II and a 70-200 f/3.5L IS II.

Silly I know but that's what it feels like...


----------



## J.R. (Jan 2, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> But unfortunately, I was disappointed with the 2.8 IS II. I thought it would be a "halfway point" between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 200 f/2L IS, but unfortunately the reality was the 200 f/2L IS at f/4 has more smoother backgrounds than the 70-200 f/2.8 does at f/2.8!



Bokeh is not really the strongest point of the 70-200 2.8 II. It can get real nervous under some conditions. 

I believe there always are some compromises in the design of zoom lenses. Yes even in excellent lenses such as the 70-200 II.


----------

