# Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?



## mackguyver (Apr 12, 2013)

I just bought a new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and still have my 70-200 f/4 IS. I'm guessing others have probably "upgraded" as well and I'm wondering how many of you kept your f/4 or if you sold, any regret you had. I have the 85 f/1.2 II and 135 f/2 plus teleconverters so I could use those for travel or when I need lighter weight.

I'm just wondering if I'll ever use the f/4 again, but it's been one of my favorite lenses, so I'm not sure what to do.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2013)

Mine is up for sale now after I received my refurb about 4 weeks ago. I don't use 70-200 enough to justify two lenses, even though the f/4 is fantastic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2013)

IQ is similar and it's much smaller and lighter - the f/4 might be nice for travel.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2013)

Sell it.

If you want to replace it, it might be worth looking into the 70-300L as a travel lens. It's lighter and more compact than the 70-200L II and it gives you a bit more reach. It's a little heavier than the 70-200L f/4 IS but is still about an inch shorter and about 2 inches shorter than the 70-200 II. The difference in length might not seem like much, but it's the difference between being able to store it vertically in a camera bag versus on its side, which takes a lot more room.


----------



## jabbott (Apr 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> IQ is similar and it's much smaller and lighter - the f/4 might be nice for travel.


Seconded. I'm one of the strange ones who purchased a 70-200 f/4L IS _after_ getting a f/2.8L II, simply to save weight while traveling. I do lots of hiking and every ounce counts. The 85 f/1.2L and 135 f/2L combined weigh 2.3x more than the 70-200 f/4L IS. I'd say if you aren't strapped for cash, hold onto both the f/4 and f/2.8 versions of the 70-200 for a while and see which one gets more use. After a while, you'll be able to make an informed decision on why one of them should be sold or not. Each person's needs will likely be different.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 13, 2013)

Thanks for the replies everyone. I think I'll hang onto it for a little while to see if I use it, but I'm really impressed with the f/2.8 IS II and wonder if the f/4 IS will see much time on the camera. I had also considered selling my 400 f/5.6, but the 70-200 + 2x extender doesn't quite match the quality and the weight is much heavier. The 400 f/5.6 is a tricky lens, but I love it, especially on my 5D Mark III.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

Interesting - I thought by having a 70-200 II I'd do away with the 135L or is that extra stop worth it? I was debating buying the 135L when I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS but figured 2 stops was a big enough advantage.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> Interesting - I thought by having a 70-200 II I'd do away with the 135L or is that extra stop worth it? I was debating buying the 135L when I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS but figured 2 stops was a big enough advantage.



I own both the 70-200 2.8 II and 135L and use both frequently. The extra stop of aperature on the 135 comes in handy at times. The 135 is also lighter and less conspicuous with a shorter minimum focal distance (which helps in tight quarters). I use the 135 much more for indoor portraits and kid shots. I use the 70-200 outdoors more and for indoor sports. You probably shoot different things than I do, but both the 135 and 70-200 2.8 have a permanent home in my kit.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting - I thought by having a 70-200 II I'd do away with the 135L or is that extra stop worth it? I was debating buying the 135L when I already had the 70-200 f/4 IS but figured 2 stops was a big enough advantage.
> ...



Yeah I see your point about the 135L being a bit more discreet, though with the lens hood attached it looses some of it's stealth!


----------



## ferdi (Apr 14, 2013)

I kept my f/4 for a while after I borrowed the f/2.8 I and then purchased the f/2.8 II, and I was sorry to let it go but it was just gathering dust.
I'm more into sports than hiking but I think good straps and backpacks can make a difference for everybody.


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Apr 14, 2013)

I have both also, I kept my f/4 which is most often on my 7D, it's a brilliant lens, the weight saving compared to the f/2.8 is also a bonus...the f/2.8 is most often used on my 5DmkIII...
Hang on to it, it may come in handy...

Another bonus is my f/4 is sharp on the 7D at both the wide and tele end no need for AFMA, can't say that about some of my other lenses...too bad you can only AFMA at one point on the 7D...


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 14, 2013)

I intended to sell my f/4 IS after getting the f/2.8 IS II but found that I was still using the f/4 IS for travel, casual use, etc. I suppose it depends on whether the size and weight of the f/2.8 ever bothers you.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> Yeah I see your point about the 135L being a bit more discreet, though with the lens hood attached it looses some of it's stealth!



Yeah, it is huge! Nearly as large as the lens itself. I don't use it much.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 14, 2013)

I agree with those above who suggested keeping both for awhile. I have the 2.8II, buts its a heavy beast. There are plenty of times on long hikes when I wished I had a 4.0 instead.


----------



## RC (Apr 14, 2013)

Keep it If you can. In my case (and I'm betting most others too) I couldn't financially justify both versions but I'd love to have both. I do not regret selling it because I clearly made a choice to gain a stop and lose the compactness of the F4 IS. Honestly I do expect to own that lens again someday in addition to my 2.8 II. It will probably be some backpacking trip or some other limited gear trip which bring me to repurchase. But for now, it's low on my list.


----------



## steven kessel (Apr 14, 2013)

I guess I'm different from most of you. I have the F4. It's among the sharpest and most versatile lenses that I own and I see no reason to buy the 2.8. I love the lightness of the lens and it produces simply spectacular images.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 14, 2013)

steven kessel said:


> I guess I'm different from most of you. I have the F4. It's among the sharpest and most versatile lenses that I own and I see no reason to buy the 2.8. I love the lightness of the lens and it produces simply spectacular images.


That's how I have felt for the last several years, but now I'm doing more photojournalism and sports work where the 135 f/2 isn't flexible enough (still love it though) if I'm stuck in one spot and the extra stop of light has become a necessity. The f/4 is ideal for just about anything else, and I have been very happy with it.


----------



## Zen (Apr 14, 2013)

Sold mine and wish I had kept it. The 2.8II is fantastic, but heavy to carry. 

Zen


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 14, 2013)

Zen said:


> Sold mine and wish I had kept it. The 2.8II is fantastic, but heavy to carry.
> 
> Zen


I think that sums up my decision. I'll keep it for now and see how much I use it over the next 3 months. If I don't use it, I'll sell it, but everyone's posts just made me realize how great it is to have a small telephoto lens, too. Thinking about it more, I often take it with me when I _might _need telephoto lengths, even if I'm just planning too shoot with my wider lenses (e.g. architectural work).

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies!


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2013)

I have the Big Daddy (70-200F2.8 L II) and got the F4 IS L because I wanted something lighter.

Found that I needed extra reach so I opted forthe 70-300L. Now I have 3 lenses with similar range.

I propose to keep the 70-200F2.8 (very sharp, F2.8) and the 70-300 (lighter and greater range).

If so, I'll sell the 70-200 F4 IS. Thoughts?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 15, 2013)

RGF said:


> I have the Big Daddy (70-200F2.8 L II) and got the F4 IS L because I wanted something lighter.
> 
> Found that I needed extra reach so I opted forthe 70-300L. Now I have 3 lenses with similar range.
> 
> ...



70-200 II + 70-300L is what I ended up with, and that combination has worked out well for me. For sports and portraiture, 70-200 II. For travel and zoos, 70-300L. The biggest advantage of the 70-300L for me is its compact size. Standing it up, I can use one lens slot in the bag as opposed to the equivalent of two slots for the 70-200L II. You'd lose fractional stops to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but if light is that much of a concern, the 70-200 II is a better choice anyway.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 15, 2013)

You can step down from f2.8 to smaller f-stops. To me, I think you should sell it and use that money for other gear


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 15, 2013)

I have both. I love the smaller zoom- lighter, easier to carry, excellent iq. I use both. Plus, always have a back-up in case of a problem.

If you need the money, sell it. If you are fine for money, it is a great lens to have and use.


----------



## mackguyver (May 4, 2013)

After using the f/2.8 for a couple of weeks, I decided to the sell the f/4. The IS is noticeably better and for me, having f/2.8 as an option makes it much more versatile for me. I would typically bring the f/4 to my event and wildlife work, but would also have to bring my faster prime lenses, whereas now I can just bring one lens. So the smaller lens actually ended up taking up more room and being heavier because of the need to bring my 135 and other lenses with it.

If I was just interested in landscape or travel photography, the f/4 (along with the 17-40 and 240-105) would do me fine, but for the work I do, the f/2.8 seems to be the lens I've been missing!


----------



## Dylan777 (May 4, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> After using the f/2.8 for a couple of weeks, I decided to the sell the f/4. The IS is noticeably better and for me, having f/2.8 as an option makes it much more versatile for me. I would typically bring the f/4 to my event and wildlife work, but would also have to bring my faster prime lenses, whereas now I can just bring one lens. So the smaller lens actually ended up taking up more room and being heavier because of the need to bring my 135 and other lenses with it.
> 
> If I was just interested in landscape or travel photography, the f/4 (along with the 17-40 and 240-105) would do me fine, but for the work I do, the f/2.8 seems to be the lens I've been missing!



For me, selling f4 is a right choice. 

Just don't ask this same question when you ready for 24-70 f2.8 II. I'm sure you know what to do with your 24-105 ;D


----------



## mackguyver (May 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Just don't ask this same question when you ready for 24-70 f2.8 II. I'm sure you know what to do with your 24-105 ;D


Funny you should say that - I actually have the original 24-70 f/2.8, and the 16-35 f/2.8 II. So far I'm hanging on to the old 24-70. The improvements from f/8-f/11 don't impress me enough to pay the price to upgrade - at least while it's that much. Besides, I have the 24 f/1.4 II, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2 II if I want to shoot anything wide open or anywhere near 2.8.

Point taken, though!


----------

