70-200 L - f2.8 or f4

I currently own a 17-40 f4 L, 50 f1.8 mk1, and a 28-135 f3.5-5.6

IS. In the next few months I will have saved about $1100 to spend

on photo equipment. I do mostly nature photography, but also enjoy

chasing after my children and do some event photography (indoor

sports) for school (not for pay). I've had my sights set on a 70-

200 f4 L for a while, but have recently been tempted by the 70-200

f2.8 L. I can get the f4 and some other equipment such as the 1.4x

TC, additional memory (I use a Digital Rebel), etc. I know

technically the f2.8 only offers an additional stop, but... it is an

additional stop! I thought if I get the f4 I might also sell the 28-

135 in favor of a 100 macro or something. If I get the f2.8 I feel

like I'll probably want to keep the 28-135 for those times when I

want a smaller lens. (Plus my wife also uses the camera, and she is

NOT a photographer) I'm very interested in a few opinions from some

folks who have owned or used these lenses. Thanks for your input

and advice!

While the f4L probly wont do for indoor sports, (unless its well lit0 it still seems like the best option given that its MUCH cheaper than its big bro, and also much smaller and lighter, (which should makr the no photog "ball and chain" some what more comfortable. Spend the rest of the money ~$500 on something else. The 3 lenses you have already will be perfectly complimented by the f4L. Sounds like a GREAT setup to me.

This has been discussed a lot. Only you know if that extra stop is really worth it. The 2.8 is a huge heavy monster (3lbs). It was not fun to carry whether hiking for nature or street stuff. Just my 2 cents. I went with the f4.

also a difference of 1000$.....i think the f4 would be fine considering one stop is a small boost in iso....

I bought the F4 not too long ago and I am not at all disappointed with it. I too wanted the 2.8 but finally had to stop lying to myself, 1,000 is a lot of money. Thats rent money. Im not saying dont go for it, but unless youre dedicated to a certain kind of photography in which light will be scarce...be real with yourself, F4 might be your best option. For example I want a 1Dmk2 camera, but I know the10D (or soon 20D)will fit my needs, I know better than to go of trying to save for and buy the MK2. ..ok to make a long story short, Ive shot games with the F4 and its done its job.

Better yet, get the f4 then sell the 28-135, and get a DSLR if you haven't already done so.

Another vote for the F4 here. Optical quality is basically the same between the two. As you mentioned, the only real difference is the extra stop. And if you want to upgrade to the F2.8 in the future, you won't take much of a hit when selling the F4.

 

I'd go F4 and the 1.4x. Being great value for money, without compromising on quality. Let us know what you decide on,

-e

Both the f4 and f2.8 have great optics. I have owned both and currently have the f4 in

addition to the 17-40 L and the 50 f1.8 Mk1 that you have. The f4 is fine for most of my

applications, but if you are seriously considering shooting sports the extra stop might

prove useful. I also shoot some weddings and have often longed for an extra stop when

shooting available light in dimly lit wedding halls. It's true that the f2.8 is a big heavy

beast, but the stop is useful if you REALLY need it. Used, you can expect to pay around

$800-850 for the f2.8 and $450-500 for the f4 so the price factor isn't as big of an issue

as you might think. Another option is to pick up the f4 and an additional fast lens like the

85mm f1.8. This is what I did. The 85 is a great portrait lens, fast and tack sharp. You

might need longer focal lengths though so a 100mm f2 and a 1.4x teleconverter might do

the trick. I believe that you can use the TC on focal lengths longer than 100mm, but I

could be mistaken. Just my .02?...

Another thing to consider, which may or may not be important to you, is that the F4 with the 1.4X will no longer have autofocus capability, while the F2.8 will... I believe I read this at some point on this forum.

>>F4 with the 1.4X will no longer have autofocus capability<<

 

Not so - the resulting f/5.6 WILL allow AF on a 10D, Elan, etc...

 

The f/4 is a GREAT lens, no boubt about it! Optically speaking is equal to its bigger bother. Only you will have to decide about the extra f-stop. I opted for the f/4 and have been super-happy and satisfied with the lens. Also, for the same price as the f/2.8L you can buy the f/4L AND the 200mmm f/2.8L.

You're using a DRebel? The 70-200 f/4L. Your Rebel more than makes up for the lost stop of light with its low noise sensor.

 

BTW, you will love this lens.

I have 2.8 IS. Digital both helps (higher ISO) and hurts (1.6 focal lengh magnification). Fully zoomed out you will need to be 1/300 to keep it steady. Put on one of your lenses and see when will you go slower then 1/300 at f/4. From what I read it seems that image quality is same across all 3 lenses (4, 2.8, and 2.8 IS). With 2.8 you can make background just a tad blurier, but not by much.

IMHO, Extra money will only give you faster shuter speeds. If I were buying my lens again I would definetly get 2.8 IS again. I can take nice images when there is not much light and thus contrast is not too big.

Not to add to your dillema, but I faced the same situation until I had saved $500 more and sprang for the f/2.8 IS to replace my 100-300IS zoom. If you thought having IS on your wide-to-tele lens was helpful, you won't realize just how much more pronounced hand-shake can be at the long end of your 70-200 (effectively a 112-320 range on your DRebel) lens, nevermind at an additional 1.4x magnification with the TC. Having the faster speed and image stability of the 2.8 IS has been a revelation for my indoor concert photography. If you still opt for either of the non-IS 70-200 lenses, make sure to get a good monopod and a 550EX flash to freeze the action indoors.

I have the 2.8L. Bought it when I was shooting film with an EOS 3, now use it with my D60.<br>

<br>

With both the 3 and the D60 the extra stop is worth the extra weight -- for me.<br>

<br>

As other posters have mentioned, whether or not the extra $$$ and extra weight are worth it <i>for you</i> is something that only you can decide.<br>

<br>

If you are really unable to decide, check around to see how much it costs to rent the lenses for one day each. Get them on different days and walk around shooting with them for several hours each... You'll soon know if you want the 2.8 or the 4. :)<br>

<br>

Good luck!<br>

<br>

Ian<br>

--<br>

Ian Hobday<br>

Osaka, Japan<br>

<a href="http://hobday.net/photos" target="_blank">http://hobday.net/photos</a> (Opens in a new window.)

I fretted about this for quite a while. In the end, weight won out:: I went with the F/4, since the vast majority of my use is outdoors for this foal length.

 

Mitch

Thanks for all the input! The more I thought about the situation the more I realized I need enough nickel and dime items to easily make up the $500 price difference. So I think I will be the proud owner of an f4! And an extra QR plate, tripod ring, extra batteries, more CF memory, 1.4x TC, etc., etc., etc. Thanks again!

The 70-200mm/4.0L is terrific value, very affordable, and it's small and light.

Use it for awhile to see if meets your needs. I was absolutely convinced that I

don't want a big/bulky and heavy lens, and I was happy with the f4.0 version

for 6 months ... then my priorities changed. I've just sold my f4.0 and I am in

the market for a 2.8 IS version.

 

I am now wondering if I should replace my 17-40mm/4.0L with the 24-70mm/

2.8L ..... but I think I will wait for the reviews and test reports on the new EF-S

17-85mm.

"for the same price as the f/2.8L you can buy the f/4L AND the 200mmm f/2.8L"

 

...and why would you want to do this?!

 

I sold my 28-135 when I invested in the 70-200 2.8, I suspect you will be able to live without it as you have the short end pretty much covered anyway.

Timothy, take a look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO, which sells mint/used, with tripod collar, for under $600. That will give you the extra speed you need for sports for the same cost as the Canon f4. The weight is halfway between the Canon f4 and f2.8.

 

I recently replaced my Canon 70-200mm f4L with the Sigma and find it virtually as sharp, even wide open. It gives excellent bokeh, and the extra stop is even more useful than I had hoped for isolating subjects and stopping action.

 

The only advantage I can see to the Canon f4 is its slightly faster AF in certain situations, mainly due to the focus limiter switch, but the difference is so slight that it's not a deal-breaker.

 

The Sigma 1.4X TC is also very sharp, and sells for less than half the Canon equivalent. I have seen them go mint/used for just over $100. I spent a total of $724 for a new lens and a mint/used 1.4X TC.

 

IMO, the 70-200mm f2.8 is one design that Sigma got right--a fully professional lens. As a bonus, its black colour attracts a lot less attention, and is not as intimidating for subjects.

 

Do a search on this site and dpreview.com and you'll find lots of threads comparing the Sigma and Canon tele-zooms. The ratings on photozone.de are also informative, and the users rate the Sigma very close to the Canons.

>>...and why would you want to do this?!<<

 

If you absolutely need a FAST tele the 200 f/2.8L is one of the BEST lenses CANON makes, without a single doubt.

 

The point I was making is that with that combination he could have an easy to carry 70-200 zoom with exceptional quality and a fast tele lens (as fast and optically BETTER than the 70-200 f/2.8L).

 

I have that combo and it works great!

>> If you absolutely need a FAST tele the 200 f/2.8L is one of the BEST lenses CANON makes, without a single doubt.

 

Yeah, and I know at least one guy who "absolutely need" a FAST tele.......

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

I like f/4 zooms and fast primes. Take out the lens that suits your needs for the day. Just think - you can have the versatility of the f/4 zoom and your pick of the 85/1.8 or 100/2 for less weight and money than the 2.8 zoom and you have the same versatility (zoom) and faster optics by 1 or 1.5 stops! Get the 200/2.8 or 135/2L for primes instead and I don't think the cost will be that far off either (just guessing here - too lazy to look up prices).

 

FYI I have all of the same lenses you own as well as the 70-200/4, 100/2.8 Macro and just last week picked up the 85/1.8 because it's significantly lighter, smaller and faster than the Macro lens. But then I guess I just appreciate small, lightweight, discrete bodies and lenses.

"I am now wondering if I should replace my 17-40mm/4.0L with the 24-70mm/ 2.8L ..... but I think I will wait for the reviews and test reports on the new EF-S 17-85mm."

 

Not much is known yet, but most likely the 17-85 will behave more like the 28-135 IS ... that is, it will be not as sharp as the 17-40 wide open.

 

Instead of replacing your great wide angle 17-40/4L with the 24-70/2.8L, you might think of just adding the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI to it ... it is cheap enough, but many reviewers claim it to be as sharp as the 24-70/2.8L (although of course not up to the same build quality)

 

Best regards,

Andy