Canon made me do it!

<p>I have a 70-200 f2.8L on the way. I also have the F4 version. Does anyone have any good reason why I should keep the F4 or should I simply sell it.<br>

Thanks in advance for your opinion!</p>

<p>I've just seen a forum post on Flickr covering this point.<br>

I've got the 2.8 IS and 4 non IS. Unless there was a major financial reason involved, I would keep both. The 2.8 IS is one of my most used lenses, so most of the time, it goes where I go. However, there are occasions when I'm not really expecting to need that length, or when I'm traveling light, I would stick the f4 in my bag instead.<br>

The f4 doesn't get used as much now, but I wouldn't be without it.</p>

The f4 is smaller and lighter if that is what you want, but the f2.8 has an extra stop of light which comes in handy when shooting fast moving subjects in low light situations. I really don't see any reason for keeping both lenses.

<p>Like Peter I also have the f2.8 IS and the f4 non IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses. I wouldn't part with either.</p>

<p>Unless I am actually shooting at f2.8 the f4 is my "go to" lens for this focal length. I love the size and weight, it's hand holdable all day, easy to scramble around with and gives up nothing on IQ (in fact it probably has the edge). However, if you need f2.8 and IS there is no substitute for the larger lens and when you need it, you need it. Also, if you're traveling light and not sure if you will need a 70-200mm lens, it's easy to throw the f4 in your bag just in case and - unlike the f2.8 version - not feel like you uselessly dragging a liter of soda around!</p>

<p>The other factor to consider is redundancy - accidents happen and it's good to know that a drop, dunk in the ocean or a river, etc. would only cost you the time it takes to get the other lens out of the bag - especially as I shoot in a lot of places that are far away from rental facilities.</p>

<p>I have a 24-105 and 24-70 and while very similar they are different in many ways, I think this is even more evident on the 70-200's. The F4 is half the weight and much smaller. I say keep them both for 6 months or so and see how much use they get. Many times I wish I had the F4 version but the 2.8 is sweet.</p>

<p>I had both, sold the 2.8, and haven't missed it. My, aren't we a diverse group! About all you can do is to see what others have done, and why, and perhaps get some insights that fit your personal lifestyle and ways that you pursue photography. I don't miss the 2.8 and like the f/4 because I do landscapes, I don't photograph people, I use a tripod and good lenses because I care about IQ on large prints, and I like to travel with the lightest possible load.</p>

<p>Lots of people have both and use the f/4 as an all day walk around b/c its so much lighter. If it were me personally, I would just lug the 2.8 around all day and get a different lens. I would rather have more focal ranges and have to carry a heavy lens than to sacrafice focal range just so I can have a light version of the same lens. I also don't have a huge budget or much in the line of lenses. I have nice lenses, but only 3 of them. I would hate to have only 4 lenses and 2 of them the same. Sell the f/4 and save up for a 300mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, or a 100-400mm, or get a 580EX. There's lots you can do with the extra money.</p>

<p>I totally get that point Nathan and if money is an issue, then clearly you get more bang for your buck by investing in another focal length rather than duplicating. This is assuming that a choice has to be made though</p>

<p>However, it would be a mistake to assume the f4 is only useful for its lighter weight (as a "walk around" lens) and that some compromises are being made there. If you are not shooting below f4 (assuming both are either IS or not) then there is no inherent advantage to the f2.8 lens at all - only the disadvantages of size and weight. The f4s have the IQ advantage (albeit only apparent if lens testing or pixel peeping) and the size/weight advantage too. This is why I just don't bother with my f2.8 lens unless I am going to be using it under f4.</p>

<p>As I said - I wouldn't want to be without either version, both are stellar performers, and professionally speaking you can't have too much redundancy. Others mileage may well vary though and I do understand about using the money to invest in other options.</p>

<p>I used to own the 70-200 2.8L and hated it. Too friggen heavy. I sold it and bought the 70-200 4L IS. Perfect combo of weight, size and IQ. I actually carry it around and shoot without moaning or bitching. Of course if you've been hitting the gym more than me that shinny new white bazooka might just work out. </p>

<p>The advantages of the faster glass *always* outweigh the very few disadvantages.<br>

In this case, the only dis on the 2.8 is the extra ounces and pricier 77mm filters it needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papai</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 07, 2010; 02:46 p.m.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p >The advantages of the faster glass *always* outweigh the very few disadvantages.<br />In this case, the only dis on the 2.8 is the extra ounces and pricier 77mm filters it needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Not if you're not shooting at f2.8. The problem with dogma and stating absolutes is that people's needs and situations are different. Clearly some people prefer the f4 (including myself and I own both) so for them the advantages of the f4 lens clearly outweigh the disadvantages of that missing extra stop.</p>

 

 

<p>So, you prefer the f/4 lens because your VF is dimmer? The AF system strains more? Telex converters really "slow down" the lens? Less creative potential? Some dogma! I wish I never knew that. The faster the lens the easier the manual focus... I can come up with more.</p>

<p>I agree, if *none* of those matter then go for the slow glass always. It's never just the f/2.8 aperture for the f/4 -- most people seem to miss the many other points. Everyone's needs are different. Of course. However, most photog people, even most avid shooters, miss the many reasons for faster glass when considering the same focal lengths.</p>

<p>So, you prefer the f/4 lens because your VF is dimmer? The AF system strains more? Telex converters really "slow down" the lens? Less creative potential? Some dogma! I wish I never knew that. The faster the lens the easier the manual focus... I can come up with more.</p>

<p>I agree, if *none* of those matter then go for the slow glass always. It's never just the f/2.8 aperture for the f/4 -- most people seem to miss the many other points. Everyone's needs are different. Of course. However, most photog people, even most avid shooters, miss the many reasons for faster glass when considering the same focal lengths. (faster is always pricier though, so your wallet gets lighter, I think that's a point too many people consider but don't always admit)</p>

<p>

<p >Ken - you are simply coming up with reasons why YOU prefer one version of the lens over another, no-one disputes that - you are entitled to your opinion. Both lenses have their own intrinsic advantages and advantages - everyone weighs those up for themselves and makes their own decision based on what is important to them. It is indeed dogmatic to state that something "always" is the case, when people have already stated that for them the opposite was true.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >When you say "The advantages of the faster glass *always* outweigh the very few disadvantages" you are actually just stating you own personal preferences. For Puppyface (and indeed myself in most cases) the decision was reversed and he sold his f2.8 as he apparently had (shocker) his own opinion. It is extreme arrogance to assume that everyone shares (or should share) your personal "weighting" of the various advantages and disadvantages. It is also arrogance to assume that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is simply "missing other points." I'm not missing any points at all - I simply prefer the f4 lens - it handles better, is lighter and if I don't need to be shooting at f2.8 I will avoid the other lens like the plague. If I need to shoot at f2.8 with IS then I use the appropriate lens.</p>

</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Richard Tully: </strong>Why did you order <strong>another</strong> 70-200? If you can answer that, perhaps I can answer your question. And <strong>"Canon made me do it!"</strong> is not a reasonable explanation.</p>

<p>Everyone> Thanks for making the water even muddier. Should have known I was opening a can of worms. I really do appreciate all the replies. They didn't help. Well, not entirely. There is good reason to keep the F4 and good reasons to sell it. Will still give the 2 options some thought.<br>

Peter J> The reason I ordered the 2.8 is for kids sports. My granddaughters are into a lot of activities and I feel the the 2.8 will be a better lens than the F4 for that. My plans are to take shots of all the players. Give away snapshots but with advertising on the back. Want to get back into semi-pro work. Did it in the past but not with the great equipment that is available today.<br>

So, I am right where I started. I think I will hold on to the F4 through the summer and see if it ever leaves the bag. If not, it will be for sale in the fall. Time will tell.<br>

Thank you all again. If nothing else, it is great to read all the opinions and ideas.</p>

<p>I have both and both are very useful. The f4 gets used most on my 5D and my fstop is usually f8 as I use strobes.. and it's a GREAT travel lens. For theater,night shoots,concert stuff,natural light photos,the f 2.8is (ver 1) rocks. Also the f4 seems to be brighter than f4.. maybe a higher T same w the 17-40L.</p>

Canon 70-200mm f 2.8...<div></div>

<p>Sell both and you can get a Nikon.</p>

<p>Had the f/4 bought the f/2.8, should not have bought the f/2.8 as it is a special lens for special things, the f/4 was a joy to carry.</p>

<p>Peter J, please lighten up. </p>

<p>You're on the roll.. don't stop! Why not get the 70-200/2.8 IS mk1, the 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 and the 70-200/4 IS-- and then run a comparative review?</p>

<p><em>It is also arrogance to assume that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is simply "missing other points." </em></p>

<p>I think it's rather arrogant of you to use that word so often. I am a perfect counterpoint to the NUMEROUS posts that write "I don't need to shoot at f/2.8 so the f/4 is fine..." That's a naive opinion as many tyros<strong> only know that </strong>and are very unaware of numerous other ad's of fast glass. </p>

<p>Know-a-lots like the arrogant me and you know far more and it's OK to repeat it often and offer the counterpoint/extra details.</p>

<p><em>"Sell both and you can get a Nikon"</em></p>

<p>Why squander that much money? Just kidding, Mark. Some of my best friends use Nikons and they're still really nice people. As for the lenses being discussed, if it were me I'd sell one of them and use that money for a lens with a different focal length. I have the 2.8 IS version and wouldn't dream of getting rid of it. It's heavy for sure but the weight is worth the results I get with it. While I can see having two bodies of the same kind, I don't think I'd find much use for two 70-200 lenses, even if they're different. That's just me though. Plus, lugging around the 2.8 IS is my excuse for not going to the gym. I suppose you <em>could</em> sell the f/4 and get a Nikon like Mark suggested, maybe an FE with an MD-12 and several lenses. That's a cool Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Want to get back into semi-pro work.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's an easy one to answer. Sell the f/4.<strong><br /></strong></p>