70-200 f4 IS build quality

I know this has probably been covered somewhere, but I've been debating--as many do--between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f4

IS. The f4 would likely handle the majority of my shooting needs. What I'd specifically like to know, especially from those of you who have

used both, is what you think of the build quality of the f4. Build quality for the long haul is important to me, and I've read a few reviews

saying that the 2.8 is better built. I've held both, but never actually used them.

<p>I can't speak to the difference between the two, but I have had a 70-200 f/4 IS for several years, and its build quality is superb. It is also strong as a tank. I once had it mounted on a tripod that blew over, and the point of contact with the concrete was the lens hood and filter ring. The lens cap shattered, and the filter ring was bent. It seemed otherwise fine to me, but I took it to a well-regarded local repair shop and asked them to test and repair it. The only repair was a new filter ring. It has performed flawlessly for the two years since then. I suppose there could be better-built zooms, and perhaps the 2.8 is one, but I have never used any that are better than this.</p>

<p>Obviously I can only speak for my example, bought in 2008 and since then has spent on average 80 days a year being hauled around several continents and temperatures from icy to desert, and vibrated along countless dirt and washboarded roads. Hasn't missed a neat- no repairs, no servicing, no issues I'm living with. Probably made 20000 pictures with it. </p>

<p>It's great: just as good as the f2.8 II.</p>

Thank you all! Good to know. I'd love the 2.8, but it's so heavy combined with my 5D Mk III. Want to get a lens that I know I'll use on a

regular basis.

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS has been my most used lens since I got it (used!) a half dozen years ago; it's robustly built, and has performed flawlessly. </p>

<p>Great, well built lens and much easier to carry around for hours on end, if you don't regularly need the f/2.8. I bought mine in 2008 and I've taken tens of thousands of shots with it and hand it hanging around my neck for many miles of trekking with my 500mm on my other body.</p>

<p>The rear barrel section of the 70~200/4L IS is plastic. I have never heard any reports of it failing in normal use, and my own copy has been fine, but IIRC I once saw a report that in a severe impact from a fall the plastic section broke cleanly leaving the lens repairable, an unlikely outcome had that section been metal. Personally I have no problem with appropriately used engineering plastic; some folks are upset by it.</p>

<p>I think the f/4 is probably tougher than the f/2.8 simply because it is so much lighter. Drop an f/2.8 and all that weight behind it is likely to cause more damage in my opinion.</p>

<p>I used to own the f/2.8 but sold it due to the weight. I never found the weight a problem when I was actually using the lens but carrying the damn thing in my bag on the off-chance of needing it was the killer. I replaced it with the 200mm f/2.8 prime lens and it's the best decision I ever made. The prime is very small and light compared to the zoom and it's black casing is much more discreet.</p>

<p>If you really need a zoom I would definitely recommend the f/4</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the f/4 is probably tougher than the f/2.8 simply because it is so much lighter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree with that.</p>

<p>The f4 has plastic switches and plastic filter rings. The rest is metal. The f2.8 is really built like a tank <strong>all</strong> metal, that's why it weighs so much. It also comes with a tripod collar while the f4 does not. Also there is some type of Canon gold plaque on the f2.8 which I think might be missing from the f4.</p>

<p>^ Harry, I think a lot of the 2.8 additional heft is due to additional length and girth of the beast.</p>

The 2.8 also has more glass inside, which adds to the weight. Thank you all for your responses! I really appreciate it!

<p>I've owned both, not at the same time, and I don't recall any difference in build quality or image quality.<br>

I switched to the f/4 version after several years of using the f/2.8 when I no longer needed the extra f/stop.<br>

Both lenses came with a tripod collar.<br>

JD</p>

<p>I'll add my two bits - I use my 70-200/4L IS two-to-several times a week photographing marine wildlife on Monterey Bay, this year from a 33-foot rigid-hull inflatable ("big zodiac-style") boat, previous couple of years on larger boats, frequently from fairly wildly-swinging upper decks. I also use longer glass, this acts as my lens for those times when things approach closely.<br>

Lots of bumps against hulls, superstructures, rails, etc - Monterey Bay often has swell in the 6-10 foot range with wind chop on top. Dropped it very recently a few days after I got my 7D MK II (oops) on the boat, and both camera and lens bounced harmlessly (it took my heart a bit longer to retract itself from high up in my throat ...).<br>

So I wouldn't worry about its build quality. It's also very sharp. I like the lightness of it.</p>

 

<p>Don Baccus, <br>

Not to hijack the thread, but you don't happen to know Dan Gotshall by any chance. He's a marine biologist (who else would be crazy enough to photograph marine mammals from a pitching deck?) who I used to dive with on the Central Coast (Morro Bay) but I've lost his contact info.<br>

JD</p>

<p>I've had two 70-200 L's. With and without IS. Both were among the best zooms I ever owned. Optics were great, build was great.</p>

Mark, which lenses? 2.8 or 4?

<p>Both were F4's.</p>

<p>Joseph Dickerson, no, I don't know him. Looks like he retired some time ago, and I only started coming down here (from Portland, OR) regularly for weeks at a time about 3-4 years ago (and am just completing my move down here).</p>

 

<p>Once I got the f4 version I almost stopped using the f2.8 lens. The f4 is terrific IF you don't need the extra f-stop. And the extra weight.</p>