70-200 f2.8L IS or 70-200 f4L IS , which IQ better?

[lemonsz_lemonsz]

<p>Im facing dilemma between this 2 lenses. <br /> The reasons that im attracted by ..... <br /><br /> = F2.8L IS = <br /> 1)wider aperture <br /> 2)nicer bokeh<br>

<br /> = F4L IS = <br />1)3rd generation IS (less power usage , increased 1 stop ) <br />2)1/2 of 2.8L IS weight and smaller size.<br>

<br /> Now im wondering the IQ by both of the lens. <br />Some threads say when wide open @ f2.8 , it will SOFT... <br />If thats true that 2.8L IS only wil get tack sharp on f4 above, so what for im going for f2.8L IS ? <br />From what i had saw from photography-on-the.net on their Lens Sample Photo Archive ,<br />i found that the overall images of F4L is sharper than the f2.8L .<br>

How about the AF speed among this 2 lenses?<br />1stop really help lots on fast action / low light photography ?<br>

So..anyone experienced before with both of these lenses? <br />Please share ur experience and opinion. <br /> Thanks !</p>

[tdigi]

<p>This same question is all over photo.net so maybe try a search.<br>

I have the 2.8 version ( no IS ) and mine is far from soft at 2.8. I would not worry about sharpness of either lens. Its more a matter of what is more important 2.8 VS 4, IS, Size weight.</p>

[jcolwell]

<p>I think Tommy's right. Do you need f/2.8 or not? I have both IS versions of the 70-200L. I pull out the f/2.8 when the lighting might be a challenge, and when I want better DOF control (or if it's going to be really windy). I pull out the f/4 in most other circumstances. I don't worry about which has better IQ, because they're both excellent. If I could only have one of them, it would be the f/2.8.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Trying to choose between Canon 70-200mm L lenses on the basis of "IQ" is like trying to decide between four quarters (US$0.25) and a dollar bill on the basis of "value."</p>

<p>All four of the Canon 70-200mm L lenses provide excellent image quality - among the best available from any zoom lens. While nit-pickers will sometimes determine that their copy of 70-200 X is marginally "better" than someone else's copy of 70-200 Y, the differences are not consistent and are probably more due to personal bias or sample variations.</p>

<p>In any case, such differences are trivial in comparison to the significant functional differences among these lenses, and it is these differences that you should look at and match up to your own photography. For four different photographers, the best choice might be a different one of the four 70-200 options for each.</p>

<p>The <em>significant</em> differences include:</p>

<ul>

<li>f/2.8 or f/4</li>

<li>IS or not</li>

<li>price</li>

<li>size/weight</li>

<li>how the lens fits into your overall lens system</li>

</ul>

<p>You need to determine the significance of each of these in your own photography and select accordingly. But selecting on the basis of IQ and ignoring the significant functional differences is not a very effective approach.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>Trying to choose between Canon 70-200mm L lenses on the basis of "IQ" is like trying to decide between four quarters (US$0.25) and a dollar bill on the basis of "value."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The metal content of the quarters is worth more than the paper content of the bill, if that helps. BTW when copper prices hit their peak in early 2008 pennies were worth more for scrap than their face value.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>The metal content of the quarters is worth more than the paper content of the bill, if that helps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>But still, my point remains. Unless you are a smelter. (or a smelt, but that is a different kettle of fish...)<br>

DAn</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>In my experience the IS version of the 70-200 F2.8 is slightly softer than the non-IS version. I bought the non-IS version but to be honest this was more about being cheap and saving $500 (since I do not find I need IS) than it was about a big difference in image quality. I sold the 24-105 F4 IS and bought the 24-70 F2.8 without IS for image quality but I suspect that IS was not the cause of a lot of the sharpness difference. <br>

i did find the non-IS version of the 70-200 F2.8 sharper than the IS version at F2.8 so may i suggest that you try that lens unless Is is essential. I find that for my type of shots I don't really miss IS as I usually have shutter speeds above 1/200th (or I have a tripod). I do find that the F2.8 is more useful than the F4 as it is better for shallow DOF portraits and since I mainly use the lens for ski racing and hockey the F2.8 gives me a better chance of freezing action. I realize that if you shoot indoor candids than IS is much more desirable so think about your type of shooting.<br>

In terms of your overall statement I would like to correct your view that IS helps fast action - it has no effect. It does help low light as you suggest but only if the limiting factor is camera shake not subject motion. As a general point of advice I would decide F4 vs F2.8 and then decide if I need IS. On a price basis the F4 non-IS is inexpensive, the F4IS and F2.8 non-IS similarly priced and the F2.8 IS is about $500 more. Just to be clear I am not anti IS but just think you need to consider it carefully. My 300 f2.8 has IS and it is useful but to be honest much less useful as the lenses get shorter. remember as well that IS adds almost 300g to the weight of the F2.8 Lens and that both F4 lenses are about half the weight of the F2.8. The F2.8 (especially with the lens hood fitted) is very conspicuous.</p>

[alan_cox3]

<p>Even if you don't use 2.8, having it will allow you to use a 2x and still do autofocus if you like. It also helps autofocus in low light. Othewise, as you pointed out, to get the sharpest photos we don't usually shoot wide open anyway. Some say the IS and sharpness are slightly better on the f/4. I chose the 2.8 IS for it's flexibility. I use it handheld with IS on most of the time (at about f/5.6 in daylight).</p>

[frank kennedy]

<p>The 2.8 lens gives a slightly brighter viewfinder and enables the precision focus on the center diamond of some cameras.</p>

[joel_p]

<p>love my 70-200 2.8 non is. End up using it alot at 2.8 (travel portraits). F4 would be less effective. More and more though i end up taking my 100/2.0 along instead...don't underestimate the weight of this gigantic brick!</p>

[hawkman]

<p>f/4 is sharper than f/2.8 at all apertures and also has less CA.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I had the f2.8 IS and it was very soft wide open. It was so soft that I always used it at f4 or above which kind of defeats the object. At f4 and beyond it was razor sharp... sharper than any zoom lens I have ever used.</p>

<p>Given the choice again, I would definitely go for the f4 version. It is much cheaper, lighter, has better IS and the IQ is supposed to be slightly better than the f2.8.</p>

<p>Put it this way, here in the UK you can buy the 70-200 f4L IS AND the 200mm f2.8L prime lens for the same money as buying the 70-200mm f2.8L IS alone. Then you have all the benefits for the same price!</p>

<p>I sold my f2.8 IS and bought the 200mm f2.8L prime lens instead. I do miss the flexibility of the zoom but the 200mm f2.8 is razor sharp at all apertures and weighs half as much, is half the size and costs half as much.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I repeat... choosing among the Canon EF 70-200mm L zooms on the basis of <em>sharpness</em> is a great example of <em>applying the wrong selection criteria</em> . All four are <em>excellent performers</em> . There are other <em>far more significant differences</em> among them.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>The f4 version according to the-digital-picture, and no I don't own an f4, I have the 2.8.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Arash - it may be true that the F4 Is is sharper than the F2.8 IS, I do not know as i have never compared them. In my experience and the objective lens tests of Photodo you will find that the F4 (non-IS) and F2.8 (non-IS) are almost identical - if anything the F2.8 has slightly better test results.</p>

[lemonsz_lemonsz]

<p>Firstly,thanks for all the comments.<br />Really helps me lot...<br />Finally,i decided to go with F4L IS , as i main concerned the weight , IQ(im a pixel-peeper), as well as the price too!<br />I had just received the lens few hours ago....<br />I found that im having a problem that mostly opposite from u guys' results.<br />i test it on the tripod with IS on + 2sec auto shutter release with auto flash on (580EX II).<br />The result was...i got extremely SHARP @ F4 @ 200mm and i got SOFT + Purple fringing @ F4 @ 70mm ,both shoot in RAW @ MFD.<br />Why this happened? Whats the problem ? <br />It seems like abnormal as mostly everyone got SOFT @ 200mm and SHARP @ 70mm .</p>