Canon 70-200 2.8 IS vs 70-200 4.0 IS

[gdanmitchell]

I think that it really comes down to careful consideration of your own needs more than

surveying others to find out if they like what they bought. (In general, we tend to report

favorably on equipment we own - for a variety of reasons you can probably imagine.)

 

I think you have to ask what features are the most important to your photography and the

way you work. Is one stop of additional aperture critical to you? Do you do a lot of hand

held low light photography with a zoom, or are you more of a tripod using landscape (or

similar) shooter? Could a wide aperture prime or two fill in (at even wider apertures) on

those occasions when you might use f/2.8 on the zoom? How important are the size/

weight issues? To what extent is cost an issue?

 

Each person who has arrived at a personal opinion about these lenses has done so partly

(or largely) in the context of how one or the other best meets their particular needs.

 

Dan

 

(Who owns the f/4 version and is very happy with the results, but who also tends to work

from the tripod and often at smaller apertures - and who doesn't like carrying too much

heavy gear.)

[raymond_black]

It depends on your main use. If you mainly use in travel, buy 70-200 f4 IS. If you mainly

use for portrait, buy 70-200 f2.8 IS. For me, I mainly use the range to shoot my kids and

some portrait. f2.8 is a much better lens for me. Although I don't need f2.8 all the time,

but when I need it, there is no alternative other than getting a f2.8 lens.

 

The advantage of f2.8 is obvious. It create a much better than brokeh and can stop action

better. 1 stop is huge. 1stop shutter from 1/60 (can't stop anything) is already 1/120

(can stop a kid). Of course I can rise ISO but frankly, the color and composition is not as

good as ISO 100 (when human skin is involved)

 

If I can only buy one 70-200, I will end up 70-200f2.8L IS. BTW, f2.8 lens price is more

stable compared with f4 (drop faster). Not sure I am right.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>With the good performance of Canon DSLR at high ISO, if you need faster shutter speed just push the ISO one stop up.</i></p><p>So, what do you do when you are shooting at ISO 1600 on a 20D, at f/4, and have a shutter speed of 1/30 sec? You can always set the f/2.8 version at f/4, but not vice versa. Also, removing the tripod collar will remove some of the weight. Obviously, that is helpful if you are using this lens handheld. I own and have used a monopod with this lenses and have ended up leaving the monopod at home, as well as the tripod collar, when I go out. I would love it if I could afford to shoot at f/4. The weight savings would indeed be quite nice. Unfortunately, there are far too many times when f/2.8 is the bare minimum I can do to get the shot (even at ISO 3200). ...and that doesn't even begin to address the depth of field benefit you get at f/2.8.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

Simple answer: Check your photos you have done with your other lenses that are closest in the focal range to the 70-200. If you tend to shoot wide open, consider the f/2.8. If you normally shoot at f/4 or smaller get the f/4 version. Buying the f/2.8 lens and then constantly stopping it down to f/4 or smaller is a waste of money.

[William Michael]

>> Also, removing the tripod collar will remove some of the weight. Obviously, that is helpful if you are using this lens handheld. I own and have used a monopod with this lens and have ended up leaving the monopod at home, as well as the tripod collar, when I go out. <<

 

Interesting, one glove does not fit all (what a poor pun but the best I could do)

 

I use the tripod collar as a brace to wedge a finger of my left hand which give me more stability: I took the collar off when I got the lens to note any difference, to me it is better on, ready to use a monopod at any time, rather than the extra time to put on and off. The additional weight of the collar, to me, doesn`t reckon in the equation. I take a pod with me almost always.

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

Click on my name, for a photo of my technique.

 

I frequently change orientation and move around from place to place. When I kept hitting things or people with my monopod, I quickly realized it wasn't for me. Anyone want to buy it, cheap? ;-)

 

I will admit that it gave me more piece of mind when carrying my camera and lens. It's like a giant carrying handle.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Yakim! Where are your priorities?! ;-)

 

Sadly, these are not my priorities.... :-(

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[stoatsngroats]

I'm interested m barbu - any chance I can 'test' it for a few weeks first?!

[m_barbu1]

Shaun, the cost of shipping would make that prohibitive, I think. $40 for monopod, $10 for

shipping. Both ways, you've got half the cost of the item.

[gob]

Many, many thanks to all who took the time to answer my question.

[jeff_bingham]

Hi Gerry,

I to was having the same problem deciding which 70-200 to buy. the 2,8 IS seemed very heavy compared to the F4 IS. In the end I bought the F2.8 IS and I'm very very pleased with it. I've owned Many Canon "L" lens and have to say this is one outstanding lens. Purposely left my tripod at home and used the Image Stablizer and was amazed.If I could have only one lens, this would be it. The background boken you get at 2.8 is incredible. Sticker price here in Canada is 700.00 more than the F4 IS, but I really believe it was worth it. I photograph Prairie Rattlesnakes with it and it focuses very quickly, seems to focus quicker than the F4 Is that I tried out.

My two cents worth.

Jeff Bingham