Canon 70 -200 F2.8 IS or F4 IS, If priced the same?

[i._l.]

I know the questions on Canon 70 - 200 have been asked many times and in many ways. Yes, I have searched and read

many posts. But, I would need your help on my below question if you use (or used) one of the 70 - 200.

 

I have the XTI body and am thinking to add the IS version of the Canon 70 - 200 lens. I can live with the price difference

between F2.8 and F4. I plan to use the lens mainly outdoors with occasional indoor usage such as Tae Kwon Do matches

about 40 - 50 feet away. I am planning to hand-hold the lens.

 

The question is if both F2.8 IS and F4 IS sell for the same price. Which one do you go for?

 

Thanks.

[philip_wilson]

For indoor get the F2.8. I use the non IS version of the 70-200 F2.8 and find it a great lens. The only indoor sport I shoot is ice hockey. Here the arenas are sometimes dark and the sport is fast so F2.8 is a minumum. Even at F2.8 and 400ISO (I shoot film) it is hard to get above 1/125 (which does not always stop the action). I plan to buy an EOS 5D Mark II for High ISo performance to solve this issue. By the way Canon AF is much faster on their high end cameras with F2.8 lenses,

[alan_bryant1]

If the price doesn't matter, get both :-)

 

I have the 2.8 IS. It's a great lens and I often shoot theater in low light, so I use it wide open a lot. I've

also taken it on hikes and, believe me, it ain't no featherweight. For hikes, I'd love to have the f/4.

 

So I guess I would summarize my experience as

 

- When I need that f/2.8, I love having it available.

 

- When I don't need that f/2.8, I loathe having to carry it.

 

...If you really can't decide, get the f/4. You'll end up taking it more places and getting more pictures with it.

 

Incidentally I've mounted mine on a friend's XTI. The camera looks tiny and slightly ridiculous on that lens. But

it worked very well.

[jcolwell]

I have both. I bought the f/2.8 first, and I think you should too.

[g dan mitchell]

But they don't sell for the same price...

 

Huh?

 

If you don't care about size and weight I suppose you would get the most expensive lens, right?

[peter_j2]

Get the f/2.8 for sports under available light. The f/4 for everything else.

[evphotography]

If price isn't a issue I would go for the f/2.8. But remember it is going to be larger and more heavy lens to use. Especially on a smaller and lighter body like the XTI. It will also be more expensive, I'm not sure where you are getting your pricing info from.

[nhut-nguyen]

The f/2.8L IS, of course.

[lightshaper]

I've had the same dilemma myself. For the kind of general outdoor photography I do, the F4 IS is definitely a better

choice due to being less heavy. What you'll give up is getting those nice blurry backgrounds...

 

If you shoot with a tripod, get the F2.8 IS, of course.

[lightshaper]

Sorry, I meant get the F2.8 (non-IS) if you shoot with a tripod.

[dave_holland]

2.8, for sure.

[john_bellenis]

"What you'll give up is getting those nice blurry backgrounds..."

 

We are only talking one stop here! Shoot a shot at f2.8 with a "nice blurry background", now stop it down to f4 and retake

it. I don't think you have "lost" the blurry background - if there is much distance at all between subject and background

the difference is pretty minimal. I get great differential focus images with the f4 lens (albeit on a full frame bodies, which

helps somewhat).

 

I have both the f2.8IS and the f4 non IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses. I use the f4 version MUCH more as it is a

really nice size and weight, not tiring for long periods of hand holding and if you are juggling two bodies it doesn't get in

the way like the bigger lens does. HOWEVER, if you need f2.8 you need it, and a stop faster shutter speed can make all

the difference when stopping action. If I had to have just one, I'd reluctantly choose the f2.8 IS and put up with the

size/weight/inconvenience factors, just to be able to use f2.8 when required. If you have both though, I'm sure the f4

would see much more use.

[ujwal]

I'd go for 2.8 but i had to go to F4 version.

 

But there are a few good things abt F4 version, firstly the F4 version balances better on your Xti.

 

1. Its razor sharp wide open ( as good as it can get)

 

2. Its lightweight...so your neck will thank you. Its possible to handhold it for hours....it may not be possible to track every kick handheld with 2.8, its much easy to strain your arms and back.

 

3. It has Canon's best 3rd Generation Image Stabilization, I am not 100% sure but the 2.8 has the older generation IS (2nd Gen) and the old 28-135mm has the 1st gen IS.

 

The 3rd Gen IS thats in the 70-200 F4 IS effectively gives u 4 stops of hand holdability as far as I know and have experienced ( Canon says 3 stops to remain on the safe side maybe...but in the field, i have found that the lens outdoes what it was designed to do) ......I know this can create a controversy here...(not trying to start one...pls consider them my private opinion). The 2nd Gen IS in 2.8 is good for 2 stops IS. If all that I have experienced is true then the F4 version is 1 stop more hand-holdable than the 2.8 version.

 

But I would trade that for the bokeg of 2.8 aperture anyday if the price were same (or if there is someone who would like to do that) ;-)

 

 

Cheers!

[bob_osullivan]

The F2.8 version is $700 more than the F4 version.

[sarah_fox]

Don't overlook the obvious: If you're going to need to freeze some high-speed moves, you might need the 2.8, which will give you half as much motion blur as the 4 when shooting wide open. Even if you're using flash, an extra stop in aperture will let you achieve your exposure with one stop less flash power, which will mean half the flash duration and half the motion blur.

 

Whether you want to carry the extra weight around is another matter.

 

My advice: Use whatever lens you have to snap some action test shots, and find out what aperture you need to satisfactorily freeze motion. Then pick your new lens accordingly.

[lmwalker]

I have both the F/2.8 IS and the F/4 IS. If you shoot indoor sports or other types of indoor events, you need the F/2.8 version. Which was my reason for purchasing the F/2.8 first. And my reasoning was the F/2.8 can do everything the F/4 can do, plus it's better in low light and gives you slightly more DOF control. Then I found out from actually using it, that it really is too big and heavy for me to happily tote around all day on a hike or when sightseeing. So, I ended up purchasing the F/4 version for those purposes. The F/4, may be slightly sharper and have better (later generation) IS, but in real world use, I can't see a significant difference between them in these regards. They are both excellent lenses, and I think both are very sharp, have excellent IQ and both have very good image stabilization.

 

Bottom line, if you are going to do indoor event photography, then the F/2.8 is the only logical choice. If you will mostly be carrying it on long hikes and/or shooting for many hours continously, and not in low light situations, then the F/4 version is the much better choice. If you need it for both purposes, and unless you are willing to shell out for both versions, I think you have to get the F/2.8 version. You can always expend the extra effor to carry a heavy lens, but there is nothing you can do to get the shot with a lens that is too slow.

[edelson1]

I would have to agree with most of the opinions you have been given. Yes, it's always nice to have a larger

aperture. But, practically, you're only gaining one stop for the price of a sore neck. If much of your work is

indoor event photography, the 2.8 may give you some advantage. Are you working in conditions where you can't

offset the aperture advantage by a 1 stop bump in ISO?

 

It really comes down to your subject mater and shooting style. Personally, I have a feeling you'll use the F4

version more than the 2.8, just out of the practical issue comfort if you're on your feet a lot.

 

Regardless of your final decision, enjoy! Both are superb choices.

 

Henry

[scott_ferris]

The replies to this question always make me laugh. The 2.8 is too heavy! That is such a ridiculous thing to say, anyway my take is this, if you are going somewhere to take pictures then take the best lens, suck up the weight it really isn't that bad, if you are going somewhere and have your camera with you then take a hyperzoom or the zoom that covers the focal lengths you most use.

 

The answer to the OP is the 2.8, it can take pictures the 4 can't, the 4 can't take a picture the 2.8 can't, no contest.

 

Take care, Scott.

[alan_bryant1]

Scott, here's the deal. I take my camera almost everywhere I go. I haven't had it long, so I'm still settling on a set of lenses, but lately it's been a 5D, a 24-105 f/4, an 85 f/1.8, a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4, and a LensBaby. What is *not* in my daily kit is the 70-200 f/2.8. And the reason is, it weighs more than all those other lenses *combined*. It's too heavy and too big to just toss in the bag and take everywhere.

 

Of course, I do take the 70-200 f/2.8 when I know I'm going to need it. So it's not like I'm missing shots I planned to get with it. What I'm missing is the spontaneous shots that I might get with that lens, but don't because it isn't with me all the time.

 

But if I had the f/4, I *would* be able to pack it everywhere, and ultimately I'd get more shots with it. That's all.

[scott_ferris]

But Alan it isn't that kind of lens. You are saying what I am, if you are going out to take pictures then you will take it (the 70-200 f2.8), if not it isn't worth it. But you have the perfect work around, the 24-105 is the best FF one lens walk around solution available, I see so many of them when traveling it is unbelievable, there are very few shots you can take with a 70-200 f4 that you can't take with the 24-105 by just walking forward twenty feet, or just cropping, the 5D gives you that ability. I don't believe you would get that many more shots if you carried the 70-200 f4 as well as the 24-105.

 

The spontaneous shots that you miss because you don't have the 70-200 2.8 with you are the price you pay for not carrying it, the f4 isn't the same, you are either doing this to take pictures or not, if you are and want the 2.8 look/feel/quality then you have to accept that carrying it is what you have to do, that is why the answers always make me laugh. It is like saying I want to use large format but don't want to carry a tripod. Very strange.

 

As an aside, I used to travel heavy but over the years my style has evolved and my lens use declined, I could travel the world (and have) with a 1D and a 16-35. I have also done it with 5 lenses three bodies and two flashes, and yes I do own the 70-200 f2.8 IS, it is my second most used lens.

 

Take care, Scott.

[john_bellenis]

Hey Scott,

 

I understand what you are saying, and I pretty much agree - having already stated that if I had to choose just one of

these lenses I would, reluctantly, choose the f2.8.

 

However, as also previously stated, I use the f4 much more, and it's not a matter of having to choose which to bring

along - they are both in the case right next to me! If I am not actually shooting at f2.8 I will always use the f4 version.

It's so much easier to hand hold, better balanced, lighter and the IQ is actually better than the f2.8 (not by much, but if

there's an optical winner it's definitely the f4). Why would I reach for the f2.8 if not actually shooting wide open?

 

I understand that not everyone can carry both lenses everywhere, but it's my job (well technically my assistants, but I

am a lugger by nature) and my camera bags are the smallest parts of my gears compared to lights (strobe and hot

lights), stands, tripods and banks, grips, etc.

[ujwal]

Well, I dont think there is going to be a spontaneous shot that only 2.8 lens can get and not the f4.

 

Actually u are more likely to get spontaneous shot with the F4 as u can hang it around your neck all day...and

track the action continuously for hours. Yes 2.8 is 2.8 no argument, it also has more value when u add flash....

no ones arguing in those areas.

 

But no matter how big or strong you are...carry that 2.8 lens with a big camera around your neck all day for

months or years......u will be paying the Chiropractor and Orthopedic surgeon a lot of money sooner or later and

u will get an advice "dont even hang a tie on your neck".

 

And even optically 2.8 is not the best lens anymore. The F4 beats it or equals it by a hair or bit more in every

department (except the obvious....it ain't got 2.8...and you don't look like a "Pro"). Pay less, carry less,

shoot more, no sore neck, dont pay the Ciropractor and use sharper lens ......nothing to lose.

 

And with that money you save on the Chiropractor, get an 85mm F1.2 ;-)

 

 

Cheers!

[patrick tom]

Weight can be an issue for long periods of time sure you can get used to it...develop strength...Another thought is going places with your big lenses say an urban setting doing street photography...you will attract attention perhaps something you may not want to do.

[scott_ferris]

Patrick they are both big white lenses, the f4 is smaller but it isn't going to attract much less attention, if you want to go un-noticed then get a rangefinder, and much, much closer.

 

Ujwal, that is my point, in general people don't walk around with either lens on the camera around their neck, it is in their hand or in their bag. But their are many reasons for getting the f4, I just didn't! I would far rather have the 2.8 and for the same price I think most people would. Your tracking action for hours point is the point of good lenses (you are there to take the best pictures you can), use the 300 2.8 for days then be relieved that the action is within reach of the 70-200 f2.8 for a little relief, but that is the price you pay for your hobby/art/buisness. But if you aren't restricted by f4 lenses then by all means get a lens that weighs less but only lets in half as much light.

 

Take care, Scott.

[richard_crowe4]

You should ask: "If price doesn't matter?" rather than "If priced the same?". I guess that it kind of means the same thing, but really doesn't.

 

I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS everywhere as half of a two camera (30D and 40D) two lens setup along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. This is the greatest combination I have ever used. The extra stop of the f/2.8 model did not convince me to carry the extra weight of that lens...

 

I can carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens mounted on a 40D at the same weight of a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens alone!

 

Sure, the test "say" that the f/4L IS has better image quality and that is nice but, I doubt very much that, in normal day-to-day shooting; you would see any significant difference between the image quality of these lenses. Both of them are great.

 

The final parameters which a perspective buyer should consider are:

 

The extra stop of the f/2.8L IS model against the significantly lighter weight and lower cost of the f/4L IS model.