A 70-200question. . . F/4 IS, of F/2.8

[andrew_pastore]

I have been looking to get a telephoto for some time, and I have saved enough

to consider the above lenses. I just need some input to help my decision. Could

anyone offer some advice, thank you.

 

 

Andy

[thomas_sullivan]

what do you plan on shooting with it?

[gdanmitchell]

Without any information, no.

 

Here is a general answer. All four of Canon's 70-200mm L zooms are optically excellent,

so your decision will not be about optical quality. Build quality is also equally excellent on

all four of them.

 

What it comes down to is a question of which is most suited to your particular shooting

needs. (Oh, and your budget...)

 

If you don't mind the extra weight and you do a lot of low light photography of active

subjects without a tripod the f/2.8 IS version is great. If you don't need f/2.8 for your work

but still find IS useful you can think about the f/4 IS. If you work on the tripod most of the

time IS won't gain you much and either of the non-IS versions would be fine. If your funds

are limited you can get the excellent f/4 non-IS version for a very good price. If size and

weight are concerns the f/4 versions are considerably smaller and less bulky.

[steve torelli]

"The age old question", speed vs IS.

 

Depends on what you want the lens to do. If you shoot mostly static subjects, outside in good light, get the f/4 IS. If you shoot mostly moving subjects, for example, your son's sporting events where you will want to stop action, or you shoot in lower light conditions, get the 2.8. Good luck.

[tim_kong]

I own tbe F/4IS and loved it. But I shoot mostly outdoors with this lens. The IS on this lens is incredible and now I can get sharp pictures with speed of 1/30 sec handheld at 200mm. Both are excellent lens IMO and it boils down to what you plan to shoot. If you want to stop/freeze action, then F/2.8 is the way to go, otherwise, I would strongly recommend the F/4IS. If your budget allows it, then the F/2.8IS will give you the best of both world. Cheers.

[jon_austin]

I owned the 70-200/4 for about 3 years, and loved everything about it ... until I got the 24-105/4 IS, then I just *had* to have IS in my telephoto lens. But the size and weight of the 70-200/2.8 IS put me off.

 

So I prayed for Canon to produce a 70-200/4 IS, and last year, my prayers were answered! However, when I saw its initial price of $1250(announced a few months before it was available for purchase), and the 70-200/2.8 IS went on sale for $1600 at B&H, I decided to pony up the extra $$ and get the big gun. After accounting for the cost of the tripod ring (the /2.8's include one, the /4's dont), the price difference was about $225.

 

Yes, it's bigger and heavier, but I got used to the more massive lens quickly. And the wide open images make it all worthwhile!

[patflynn]

I'll second what Jon Austin said. I haven't used the f4 but I have used the 2.8 IS for three years and it's my finest lens. I shoot at f2.8 as often as possible in appropriate conditions, because of the beautiful bokeh. I did hear a few opinions that the new f4 IS is somehow optically superior to the 2.8, but the ability to shoot wide open has become very valuable to me. If I had both lenses I think I would probably carry the 2.8 instead of the 4 in every case where the larger size wasn't an unaffordable obstacle.

[jim_larson1]

Yes but. . .the 70-200/4L-IS is not holding its initial pricing. Currently, this lens is a bit more reasonably priced at $1050.

 

And if you are a handheld type of guy. . that would be an indication that you need IS. . .you don't *need* the tripod ring. I have the ring, (for a non-IS 4L) and it is used maybe once a year (I am not a tripod type of guy)

[jon_austin]

Jim makes good points (as he usually does): the cost of the /4IS has dropped since its debut, and a tripod ring isn't worth anything if you don't use a tripod.

 

Even the /4 non-IS could benefit from a tripod ring, if you ever do use a tripod. The lens isn't very heavy, but its length gives it enough leverage that I wish I had a ring for it when I used it on my tripod.

 

Even given the current, lower price of the /4IS, I'm still glad I bought the /2.8IS. If you can continue to save a little longer, and if the /2.8IS weight isn't an issue for you, I'd recommend you hold out until you can afford it.

 

I've never regretted buying better lenses. I've regretted buying lesser lenses a couple of times; in both cases, I eventually sold them and bought what I should have gotten in the first place.

[andrew_pastore]

Thanks everyone. I was leaning toward continuing to save for the 2.8 IS. I guess some more months of waiting will be worth it.

 

Andy

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you do end up getting the 2.8 IS lens, I can assure you that you will be pleased with the pictures it gets you. Pleased is an understatement. Big understatement, actually. When you see the first photos you take with it, you may run out into the street laughing and yelling and screaming and expressing so much affection towards it that your wife begins to feel underappreciated. It's a heck of a lens. By reputation, the other three will have the same effect on you; they're all honest-to-goodness pro-quality lenses.</p>

 

<p>Do try to handle one of the f/4 lenses and one of the f/2.8 lenses before making a final decision, though. There is a significant difference in weight (there are also differences between the IS and non-IS versions at the same speeds, but much less than the difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions). I'm not exactly Schwarzenegger and I don't find the 2.8 IS too heavy, but I know my tolerance for lugging camera equipment around is higher than some other folks' tolerance. So satisfy yourself that you're OK with the weight before buying.</p>

[mormegil]

You've already decided, but here's my 2 cents anyway.

 

Between the 4L IS and 2.8L non-IS, I say go for the IS. The aperture difference is 1 stop, but the IS diffence is 4 stops, equaling 3 stop advantage for the 4L IS.

 

Personally, I was considering the 4L IS vs the 2.8L IS, and went for the 2.8L IS (even though it has 1 less stop of IS, giving parity in hand holdability). Reason is the 2.8 aparture gets you 3x the AF precision with certain cameras, including my 5D.

 

 

I think it's a great idea saving up extra to get the 2.8L IS, you won't regret it. I have the 4L non-IS, and find the new one much more usable (though heavier).

[shadowcatcher]

I own a F2.8 and wish I'd got the IS version if that helps.

[Laurance R]

Jose, I'm reading your remarks - very helpful. I too have a 5D, and, am in the midst of evaluating these lenses, so am curious as to what the 3x the autofocus precision matter is about with the 2.8. Could you offer me the insight?

[michael_b._andersen]

I had recently the experience of comparing the F4 IS 70-200mm (F4) against the F2.8 IS 70-200mm (F2.8) on a Canon 20D and a Canon 1D. Optically the F4 shines, it is a tick better in the resolution area. But there is a big BUT.... because the IS and the focusing lacks the speed and precision of the F2.8 in critical situations.

Please note that F2.8 makes the Canons use a cross focus with higher precision.

To me it meant choosing the F2.8 version and also getting other benefits... among others the +1 stop extra speed.....

 

Michael