Comparing 70-200L f2.8IS and 70-200 f4IS

[ed_hurst]

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I have read much about these lenses, including how all four of the L series 70-200s are excellent, how the differences are small and how the f4IS version is the sharpest of the four.</p>

<p>I have had the f2.8IS for three years, and have always liked it. Today, I tried an f4IS to see how it compares. I would like to share my impressions and see if this accords with what others have found (partly to check if I am going mad and partly to see if my conclusions are skewed by sample variation).</p>

<p>My conclusion is that they are both excellent. At f5.6 (and smaller) the f4IS seems slightly superior. However, when shooting at f4, the f2.8IS seems slightly better. I guess this is not a shock as that aperture is wide open for the f4IS, but I had hoped that that lens would be uniformly better at all apertures.</p>

<p>What do you all think? Do you agree that the f4IS is better from f5.6 and smaller, but that the f2.8IS is better at f4?</p>

<p>Best wishes,</p>

<p>Ed</p>

[jcolwell]

<p>I agree that both are excellent lenses, and that the f/4L IS is a bit sharper in many conditions.  I haven't done a head-to-head comparison of both lenses at f/4 with the same subject, because I generally only take one of them with me.  I use the f/2.8L IS for low light, indoor events and sports (it balances much better on a 1DII than does the f/4L IS), and I use the f/4L IS for everyday walkabouts, hiking, travel, and when I'm carrying a lot of other, heavy stuff.   I never use IQ to decide between them, regardless of the apertures I expect I'll be using.</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>Well at the-digital-picture.com the f/4 seems sharper at all apertures and all focal lengths.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>There have been many threads like this, all seem to say the same. However I bought my 2.8 IS before the 4 IS came out so I had no choice. Don't know if they made them sharper back then but the truth is my 2.8 is blindingly sharp, too sharp often for portraits, certainly sharper than a friends f4 non IS, I am very happy with mine and won't trade it even when they come out with a MkII.</p>

[r_smith2]

<p>As of about 1 month ago I currently own both versions. I have been using the f2.8 IS version for the last 4 years or so and really love it but it is heavy especially since mine is attached to a dedicated 5D with a battery grip which helps to balance it out. I bought a 5DmII last spring and have it attached to a 24-105 f4 IS lens most of the time but I do swap it out with my 17-40 f4. I have been amazed by the low light shooting qualities of the new 5DmII as compared to the 5D. About a month ago I took the money I had saved for the new 16-35II because the 17-40 attached to the 5DmII was meeting all my needs and spent it on the 70-200 f4 IS lens. I have been completely blow away by how great of a lens it is. It is every bit as sharp as my f2.8 IS and I easily picked up at least one if not two stops of stabilization over the f2.8 IS version. I am especially not complaining about the lighter weight and smaller size. It is not as manly as the f2.8 but I am old enough and secure enough not to worry about that anymore. Depth of field at f2.8 is not an issue for me since I shot my f2.8 version at f4 to f8 95% of the time and the new 5DmII with its ability to shoot at higher ISO's with less noise compensates for that other 5%. I see no reason now to keep my f2.8 IS lens except as a possible backup for the f4. </p>

[hawkman]

<p><em>Do you agree that the f4IS is better from f5.6 and smaller, but that the f2.8IS is better at f4?</em></p>

<p>No I don't, the f/4 is sharper on ALL apertures on my 5d MKII. Myabe you have a bad copy or focus issue with f/4. Post some samples. </p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>With the differences being so small, and the fact that each of these lenses will have "copy varrience" this is impossible to say. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Ed, If you haven't already found this site (The-Digital-Picture), it's a real font for Canon lens comparison. This page compares the 2 contenders, and you can play around with focal length/aperture, or switch to pretty much any-and-all Canon lens:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2</a></p>

<p>I see the sizes are a bit disimilar in this example, but still helpful.</p>

[markonestudios]

Mendel, that is a really useful site. Thanks :)

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I think that image quality is the wrong issue to compare when looking at these Canon EF 70-200mm L lenses. All four are among the best zoom telephoto lenses available from any manufacturer in terms of image quality. Image quality differences here are very tiny and as likely to be due to sample variation as to anything else - and in any case are insignificant in photographs.</p>

<p>The significant differences among these lenses, and the factors to consider as you make a choice include:</p>

<ul>

<li>price</li>

<li>size and weight</li>

<li>need for f/2.8 or not</li>

<li>need for IS or not</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>