# Focus speed comparison between 70-200 f4L and 200 f2.8L II



## mattcc (Jan 22, 2012)

I currently have the 70-200 f/4L (non IS), but I am considering replacing it by another lens with faster focusing speed. Does anyone have experience with both the 70-200 f/4L and the 200 f/2.8L II? How do their focusing speeds compare for moving objects? I'll be using it on a 5d mark ii. I'll be interested in a comparison (of the focusing speeds) with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II as well. Let's assume that I'll be using the lenses at 200mm, if that is a factor in the comparison.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 22, 2012)

From my impression I would say the 70-200 f/2.8II is fastest. That is just my feeling - I didn't do back to back tests. Certainly it is very fast. Moving objects are more of a function of the body, the initial lock on is the lens


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2012)

There are no focus speed specifications, and focus speed is impacted by not only the subject, but by the amount of light, as well as camera body, and likely other things as well, so careful testing on a range of targets, distances, light levels, and camera bodies would be needed to really get a correct answer.

Until a test method comes along, we only have the feelings and opinions of users, no facts.

I've had both, and never noticed a significant difference, both were fast enough for me.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 23, 2012)

I own the 2.8 Mark II, a friend owns the f4 IS. To me the 2.8 feels faster, but not by much. The 2.8 part is critical for night sports. Honestly when It's not my primary lens, I wish I had the f4. I even traded my buddy for a week when I went traveling.

His take on the 2.8 II: Wow it's awesome. Wow it's heavy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I own the 2.8 Mark II, a friend owns the f4 IS. To me the 2.8 feels faster, but not by much. The 2.8 part is critical for night sports. Honestly when It's not my primary lens, I wish I had the f4. I even traded my buddy for a week when I went traveling.
> 
> His take on the 2.8 II: Wow it's awesome. Wow it's heavy.



+1

Exactly my feeling. I bought one and returned it. Then a year later, I bought a refurb at the 15% off price thinkiing maybe it wasn't as heavy as I thought. Returned it as well, I've been hooked on primes.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 25, 2012)

I've used both. They are both quick focusing. You shouldn't have a problem (as long as the focus is working, calibrated, etc.)


----------



## Tijn (Jan 26, 2012)

At least some people in this thread have misread the second lens in this comparison, the prime "200 f/2.8L II", as the *zoom 70-*200 f/2.8L II.

That wasn't the question, of course.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

Tijn said:


> At least some people in this thread have misread the second lens in this comparison, the prime "200 f/2.8L II", as the *zoom 70-*200 f/2.8L II.
> 
> That wasn't the question, of course.


Glad you raised that I couldn't work out why someone would think the 200 f/2.8 was heavy. The 200f/2.8 isn't as fast as the 135 f/2 or the 400 f/2.8 but it is no slouch either


----------



## preppyak (Jan 26, 2012)

Tijn said:


> That wasn't the question, of course.


Might want to double check that


mattcc said:


> I'll be interested in a comparison (of the focusing speeds) with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II as well.


----------

