Canon made me do it!

[daniel flather]

<p>Wow you people, the 2.8 is already the slow and light version; the real 200mm is f2.0 at 2.5 kilograms.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Yea Ken, maybe presumptuous would have been a better word than arrogant - I'll give you that one! I still maintain that it comes down to personal priorities - which means that there is no absolute "best" - just a best choice for each individuals specific requirements. Listing the advantages of one lens over another is irrelevant if those advantages don't apply. If weight and size are someone's first priority you can list endless advantages of a heavier alternative and they will fall on deaf ears. Sure it's an advantage of the f2.8 lens to be more useful with TCs, but if you have fast 300mm and 400mm primes, it's just not important. </p>

<p>If for some reason I had to sell one of my 70-200mm lenses it would be the f4 version as the f2.8 is clearly the more versatile lens due to the extra stop. Luckily I don't have to though and as a result my 70-200mm f4 is by far the more used lens of the two. I choose the "best" lens for me in each situation and more often than not that's the smaller one. That's why I am wary of absolutes - you can't ignore people's different preferences, priorities and situations.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I really do agree with you. "They say" that the 4L is "sharper" than the 2.8L which sort of irks me! The far cheaper lens is sharper... <strong><em>what?!</em></strong></p>

<p>No matter what I am stoked and all the info anyone would need about GOOD 70-200 zooms is in this thread.</p>

<p><img src="http://kenpapai.com/blog/images/lenses8779.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>I love my lenses!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Hiking is much more pleasant with the f/4 version.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Ken, the f4 is sharper... not by any meaningful amount, but it is. </p>