Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/2.8 IS

<p>I've used the 1.4TC on my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS with no issues, shooting birds, wildlife and surfers.</p>

<p>David, I have a Nikon AF-D 80-200 f2.8 which does a really awesome job on portraits. The f2.8 is also great for weddings. But, on trips, I rarely pack it because I cannot justify all that weight and space for just one lens, not to speak of lugging it around on a hike. An f4 lens would be a lot more practical for my purposes and would be used a lot more.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

I say go for the more capable lens. The 2.8. It's wort the extra weight in my opinion.</p>

<p>Excluding the weight differences, let's do some simple arithmetic. There is a price difference of about $680 between your two chosen lenses.</p>

<p>As an example, and excluding the weight differences, there is a $1760 price difference between the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2 II.</p>

<p>In your case, having just enough is better than not having enough. Go for the 70-200/2.8 IS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Savas, none of those shots required an f/2.8 on a 7D</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The hatters store was shot at f/3.2; ISO 3200.</p>

<p>Other interiors at the museum really lacked available light, such as this one, shot at f/2.8, ISO 6400.<br>

<img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p208865852-2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

or F/2.8, ISO 1600<br>

<img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p230235929-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Camera body was 5DII.</p>

<p>If you have the dough - get the f/2.8 IS. Won't be sorry, specially the first time you take a picture where you need ISO6400/f2.8/1/8 sec. Mine is also welded on my camera, and only when I really really can't get the shot with that lens, then I use another. That is usually only when I need to shoot something that is wider that what I can get with tht 70mm in the available space I have to work in. Don't bother with the extra weight, you get used to it.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>The only way to see which you prefer is to handle both. I think you will instantly know which is practical for you. Another approach is to consider an f4 zoom and pair it with an 85 f1.8 or 135 f2. In the end the awful truth is that both an f4 zoom and an f2.8 are useful at times and some poor people have both.</p>

<p>Agreed. You should handle both lenses. f/4 version is excellent, a touch sharper, less chromatic abberation and more contrast, especially comparing both at the extreme end. You will be more likely to have it on you, even if you own a lot of other lenses.</p>

<p>The new f/4 IS wasn’t out when I got my 2.8 IS. I went for it solely because I shoot as an amateur, otherwise primes in the equivalent focal lengths would have been just the ticket. I get reasonable quality from the lens plus the addition of IS when it is warranted. I have so few lenses to begin with and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS helps keep my lens count down and fulfills a needed range.</p>

<p>What sold me on it was a rental from Adorama. I picked it up and out I went. It was bright and sunny out, but I happened into some spaces that were quite murky. St. Patricks Cathedral was one of them. Place was crowded and security was present, so I stood just within the doorway and captured a low-light shot of the distant alter. Without swapping or missing a beat. The image came out acceptable.</p>

 

<p>I read a review recentely that said the f2.8 version was designed with the full-size image cameras in mind while the Nikon f2.8 was designed for the dx cameras like theNikon D300.</p>

<p> </p>

I would go F4 and a fast prime.

 

But reading between the lines I seem to read that you don't mind the weight nor the price. So I think that you will be most

happy with the 2.8.

 

Note that the I version has a longer MFD and less MM than either the II or the F4. That might be important to you. Plus

the IS of the II is probably improved. (for a price of course)

<p>If you don't mind the weight, I would definitely get the 2.8IS. I think it's a phenomenal lens and use it a lot on my 7D and 1vHS. The 2.8 is helpful in low light and has great bokeh, whether you're shooting portraits or isolating specific elements in landscapes or nature/wildlife shots. I have no doubt that the f/4 is a superb version but if you're accustomed to using the 100-400, you won't mind the weight of the 70-200/2.8IS at all.</p>

<p>

<p>I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS Mark I but not the 70-200 f4L. In terms of f stop, obviously the f2.8L has a 1stop faster advantage. In terms of resolution, at all the zoom range, looking at The-Digital-Picture.com comparison chart, at f4, the f2.8L IS seems to have a slight edge, but from f5.6 and smaller, it seems to be the reverse. If you plan to use the lens mostly at f2.8-f4, then I recommend you get the f2.8L IS. If the f2.8-f4 is not important to you then I recommend you get the f4L IS since it is lighter, cheaper and seems to be a little sharper from f5.6 and smaller. My recommendation may change once the 70-200 f2.8L Mark II is out and well tested.</p>

</p>