70-200 f/2.8 or 70/200 f/4?

[koosnet]

I have a Canon EOS 400D body. I want to buy a 70-200 L-lens from Canon.

But I want to know what the quality differences are between the 70-200mm f/2.8

L USM and the 70-200mm f/4 L USM. The price different is very big.

Greetings from Holland, Koos Net

[tridakfoto]

What do you plan to use the lens for? What type of photography would you primarily want to be doing?

 

There is a huge price difference and I had the same dilemma for many months to be honest but I bit the bullet and went for the f/2.8 and love it. But in the end I really wanted to have fast lenses for my goals and purposes.

 

You really can't go wrong with any 70-200mm lens as they all have great reviews but it really depends on what you would like to use it for.

 

I chose the f/2.8 with IS only because I plan to start shooting weddings next year and I didn't want to go for anything less and regret it later. I figured I would go for the 2.8 (or less) on all my lenses and IS if I could for my purpose but like I said yours may be totally different.

 

I would think if you enjoy landscapes and will be shooting in great lighting most of the time to go for the f/4 but if you think you may need the fast aperture in low light i'd have to say get the 2.8 non-Is or IS. Both are supposed to be very sharp, the non-IS maybe even a little better at the long end. There are great deals on the f/4IS and f/2.8 IS at B&H if you were interested.

 

Good luck with your choice.

 

Jason

[emre]

Good thing you didn't ask about the IS versions otherwise we'd have twice as many lenses to debate.

 

Visually they are pretty similar. If you can get the shot you need at f/4 get the f/4. If not, get the f/2.8. It sounds like you are budget-minded so I'd recommend the cheaper one. It also happens to be smaller and lighter!

[tridakfoto]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

There are tons of reviews which I think I have seem almost all of them but what helped me the most was to go in to a store and test them out. then think of why you want the lenses and the long term use and goals and hopefully make the best decision based on that.

[shambrick007]

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%3Aphoto.net&q=70-200+f%2F2.8+or+70%2F200+f%2F4%3F

[jason_hall4]

By all means if you can swing the cost and can justify it, get the f2.8 all the way. But if you can not the F4 will serve you well though it does limit you to some degree. Personaly I would rather have the f4IS over the f2.8 non IS. But that is just me.

 

Some say "oh but the bokeh of the f2.8 is a must have for portraits" In my opinion if fast glass and wonderful bokeh is of the most importance, then get a nice fast prime.

 

To me zooms are work horses and should be more practical. But then again if you can get the f2.8 with IS(that is what I have) then that is the only choice IMHO.

 

Jason

[gdanmitchell]

"But I want to know what the quality differences are between the 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and the 70-200mm f/4 L USM."

 

There are no significant "quality differences" among the Canon 70-200mm L zooms. They are uniformly of outstanding optical and build quality.

Deciding among them on the basis of which has the "highest quality" is a hopeless task.

 

Choosing among these excellent lenses is all about determining which most suits your particular needs. One excellent photographer might find

that the non-IS f/2.8 version would be "best" for him/her, while another photographer doing a different kind of work might be better served by

the f/4 IS version.

 

Examples:

 

If you are shooting fast action sports in low light the non-IS f/2.8 version might be best.

 

If you are mainly a landscape photographer working from a tripod, the f/4 non-IS might be best.

 

If you shoot handheld at wide apertures and need to limit DOF as much as possible, the IS f/2.8 might be your choice.

 

If you don't generally work in extremely low light but you do work handheld and want to minimize weight then the f/4 IS might be best.

 

And so on...

 

Dan

[mark_hahn]

once you take price out of the equation, it comes down to whether f2.8 is worth a very large and heavy lens (to most people).

 

My best 70-200 story is at a CA attraction on vacation, I wanted to take a shot with my f4 and didn't quite have the shutter speed. A guy next to me shot something similar with the f2.8 version and I joked that I wished I had his lens at that moment... he laughed and said, "but at the end of the day I'll really wish I had yours!"

[winn]

"If you are shooting fast action sports in low light the non-IS f/2.8 version might be best." This is what I'm interested in. Wouldn't the f/2.8 IS be better? This would be handheld in a gymnasium and also under stadium lighting.

[mmallia]

I have had both 70-200 F4 and F2.8. They are both great sharp lenses. I decided to upgrade to the 2.8L non IS. I noticed it is faster, collects alot more light.

 

The only downside is the weight after a few hours of shooting my wrist gets really sore.

[keith_lubow]

One is an f/4, and the other is an f/2.8.

 

With that information, if you can't decide what would suit you best, you shouldn't even consider buying expensive equipment, and should buy some classes and/or books instead.

 

Not to mention that this question is probably one of the most asked questions on this Website, and you could have searched the archives and had quite a lot of material.

 

Keith

[koosnet]

Many thanks everyone. I have made my choice. I have taken the F4 (on 11-27-2007), mainly for the price and the weight.

 

Gr. Koos.