70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I vs 70-200 f/4 IS vs. 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS

[cleeo_wright]

 

 

 

<p>All,<br>

I would like to acquire one of the lenses above. My research shows mixed results. DxO rates the f/2.8 lens higher than the f/4 and <a href="http://www.photozone.de">http://www.photozone.de</a> just the oposite. What would you choose?<br>

Here are some parameters.<br>

1. I don't have the money for the 2.8 Mk II so please don't suggest it.<br>

2. Most of my photography is outdoor but I am beginning to work indoors and with people more. Still at this point I am working mostly out of doors.<br>

3. I do not do much wildlife work so that isn't a priority. The lens would be used primarily to isolate landscape and nature subjects.<br>

4. I'm in decent shape for my age so I could probably carry the weight but I would like to hear your experiences with the heavy f/2.8 vs. the lighter f/4.<br>

5. Since the Mk I is not produced any more I would be buying it off of EBay or KEH. I could get a new f/2.8 non-IS for about the same price<br>

Thanks everyone. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them</p>

 

 

 

[John Crowe]

<p>Take all the internet lens rating sites with a big chunk of salt. I prefer speed over IS, but having said that I am considering replacing my heavy Nikon 80-200/2.8 with a Canon 70-200/4 L (non-IS). The advantage of the two f4 versions is the smaller size and weight, and both still have excellent image quality.</p>

<p>I use mine primarily for sports so I don't need IS. When I do use it for landscapes I still don't need IS since I use a tripod. The xx-200/2.8 lenses do get heavy when I am panning racing cars for an extended period of time. I don't need f2.8 for panning either. </p>

<p>All of the lenses you are considering are excellent. Whether you need f2.8, IS, or both is tough to know. I have had excellent results buying used from keh, adorama, and eBay.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS is my most used lens. I use it outdoors for portraiture of my children, as well as landscape and nature details, and find that it delivers prime-level IQ. As a general purpose telephoto zoom, I would recommend it without reservation.</p>

<p>I briefly considered replacing it with the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, but just couldn't justify the additional cost, weight, and bulk of the faster zoom. I have never found the maximum aperture of f/4 to be limiting for my purposes, and I can easily carry the lens around all day.</p>

<p>I would not consider getting a longer lens without IS, but I shoot only static or slow moving subjects, so I tend to use relatively low shutter speeds (and low ISOs).</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I have the f2.8 IS (version 1), purchased before the f4 was available with IS. But, if I had the choice to make again, I would likely go with the f4 IS, for it's more compact dimensions, and about 1/2 the weight. Physical condition doesn't really enter into it: the 2.8 IS just get's hard on your shoulders after a while, regardless. The f4.0 is a bit sharper, to boot.</p>

[don_pugh]

<p>Cleoo, I bought a used 70-200L f/4 IS a couple of months ago and couldn't be more pleased with it. I've seen test data showing the lens producing images comparable to Canon primes across the entire focal range of the lens and that has been my experience so far. Normally I shoot mostly landscapes and use a tripod, but there is no color in my area and there hasn't been any significant snow or ice either, so to this point most of my shooting with the lens has been handheld. Here's a shot from Florida of a Brown Pelican in flight at 200mm and cropped about 90%, ISO 200, f/8 and 1/640 with a 5D Mark III.</p><div></div>

[don_pugh]

<p>Here's another handheld image from the 70-200L f/4 IS, a shot of my dog at 200mm, not cropped, ISO 100, f/4, 1/640.</p><div></div>

[rui_wang3]

<p>I have both 2.8II and 4. Both are amazingly sharp. However, 2.8 is very heavy. Unless you need 2.8, go for the 4. IS is quite useful for telephoto lens if you plan to shoot under low light.<br />For indoor situations, use a fast prime lens. 2.8 is barely enough. <br>

Now I barely use either because both are pretty heavy. I use 24-105/4 and a fast 50mm prime.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>I have the 70-200 F2.8L IS MkI, I had the MkI non-IS F4. I use the 2.8 as my primary sports lens and I have started using it as a portrait lens in my makeshift studio.<br>

It is a wonderful lens and worth the weight. The F4 would sometimes (rarely) hunt for focus, the F2.8 never.<br>

I have had several lenses before the F2.8, this is the keeper.<br>

Ed</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>I’ve used four of the five 70 to 200L’s (except the F/2.8L IS MkII).<br>

All of them are very good to excellent, IMO.<br>

I also suggest you don’t stress over the ‘ratings’.</p>

<p>You’ve mentioned the outcomes you want, but: if I were you, I’d look at two elements of technique:<br>

Tripod / Hand-Held ?<br>

Shutter Speed ?</p>

<p>If you will generally use slower Shutter Speeds and even SOMETIMES are hand-held, then go for one of the IS lenses: that’s a no brainer.</p>

<p>If, <strong>95% of the time</strong>, you are at shutter speeds where IS is not substantially important, then I would (and did) buy the F/2.8 (not IS).</p>

<p>As (my) guide to you – I am at 1/320s slowest – and <strong>usually at 1/800s or faster and I can use a monopod, whenever I like.</strong></p>

<p>The other three reasons I bought the F/2.8 are:<br>

The extra stop allows me to make the faster Shutter Speed and I do shoot at F/2.8 to make the shutter speed I require.<br>

The F/2.8 is a tad better IQ than the F/2.8IS<br>

The F/2.8 is a more than a tad better than the F/2.8IS when either of the Canon MkII tele-extenders are attached: and I do use those sometimes. </p>

<p>The <strong><em>differential</em></strong> between F/4 and F/2.8 is not all that much for Subject Isolation due to Shallow DoF for most (90%) of Shooting Scenarios – so don’t get caught up in that idea.<br>

If it comes down to selecting one of the IS versions you mentioned, I suggest you look at: weight; second hand vs. new; whether you will really need F/2.8 for any reason, at any time.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[dcstep]

<p>One more vote for the f/4L IS. It has great IQ and is very versatile, covering portraits, landscapes and wildlife. I find the IS very useful, particularly for things like night street photography.</p>

[don_pugh]

<p>Canon claims the IS on the 70-200 f/4 IS is worth 4 stops. I've read other opinions that it's closer to 3, but whatever it is I've been very impressed with the sharpness of my handheld images. Here's a handheld shot in very low light after sunset,5D III, 200mm, f/5.6,ISO 1600 and shutter speed only 1/40, cropped. Not tack sharp but much better than I would have expected at that focal length and shutter speed.</p><div></div>

[don_pugh]

<p>Here's a handheld shot with the same camera and lens from the top of the Ponce DeLeon Lighthouse in Port Orange, FL, 70mm, f/8, ISO 100, 1/125. I've zoomed in and the detail of the tile on the roofs across the image is tack sharp.</p><div></div>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>4. I'm in decent shape for my age so I could probably carry the weight but I would like to hear your experiences with the heavy f/2.8 vs. the lighter f/4</em>."</p>

<p>Many outdoor photographers prefer the F4 because it is lighter to carry. Some say that the f2.8 Non IS which is cheaper is a bit sharper than the f2.8 IS version. They say the same about the non-IS non weather sealed 300mm f4 vs the IS 300mm F4 but who really knows. I own the lighter 300 f4 non-IS/non weather sealed version and is a great lens to me.<br>

But for my bread-and-butter lens I chose the 70-200mm f2.8 IS ! if that was the last thing I was going to do. The lens is well balanced in my hands and does not feel that heavy. I shoot weddings and special events so the IS come in handy. This is my favorite lens by far and I got it before the price peaked. I only have 3 IS lenses out of around 15 so I figured I would splurge on this one. I have friends who own the F4 and swear by it, but when it comes to the build quality and the wow factor the IS f2.8 win hands down !</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Don't buy a lens for "wow factor."</p>

[dave_kim2]

<p>The f4 IS is a great lens, great IQ (even wide open) and great IS, probably almost 1 stop better than the 2.8 IS (i think the 2.8 IS II is better). But apples to apples, if you stop down the 2.8 IS to f4 the IQ is the same as the f4 IS, can't comment about the 2.8 non-IS because I've never owned it. <br>

The biggest difference is the weight, the 2.8's are bricks, whereas the f4 is quite light.<br>

So if you want the action stopping speed or thin DOF get the 2.8, otherwise get the f4.</p>

 

[jaydesi]

<p>I have the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk I and the f/4 non-IS version. I like both, but I bought the f/4 version because it's much lighter, and I was using the f/2.8 stopped down most of the time and in good light, where the IS was less useful. It gets heavy in a camera bag full of other equipment, especially if you don't have a bag that distributes weight well. So now the f/4 is in my day bag that I carry everywhere, and I only swap it for the f/2.8 when I need that stop or IS (It's also handy because I can still attach a 2x teleconverter and have AF). If I'm traveling, I only bring the f/2.8 so I don't have to carry two lenses of the same focal length, where space in my carry on bag and weight are an issue.</p>

<p>Hope my experience helps you make your decision.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>In my use, I've found f2.8 to be essential, but your description of your intended use doesn't seem to reflect this. In your case, despite the 4/IS's slightly inferior bokeh, and longer minimum DOF, I think it's likely you'll be better served by it than by either of the f2.8s. </p>

 

[philip_wilson]

I have both the F2.8 non IS and the F4 IS and spent quite a while evaluating the mk I IS. All three lenses are very good

and the differences in IQ negligible. I find the crops on the digital picture are very accurate based on my lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

I found the non IS F2.8 lens to be slightly sharper than the IS version although the difference was very small. From my

brief tests the MkII F2.8 is the sharpest of the lot. I bought the F2.8 lens first and still use it to shoot sports or the

occasional concert. I added the F4 IS later as I got fed up of carrying the F2.8 lens when I was outside. The IQ of theF4

IS Issa good as the F2.8 non IS in any real world situation. While I would always use the F2.8 for sports - especially ice

hockey I find that intake the F4 IS with me on a lot mre occasions. The F4 IS is half the weight and quite a lot smaller -

unless you really need F2.8 get theF4IS

[robert_turner5]

<p>As many have noted, unless you really need 2.8, there's no need to carry the extra mass (somewhat offset by the reduction of your wallet's mass in the case of the 2.8/IS). I replaced my v1 2.8IS, a lens I described as one "I would never part with" as I wanted a more compact day package. The IQ and usability of the 4.0IS has been delightful from the get-go, and I don't regret my decision. </p>

<p>However, if you ever find yourself shooting weddings or the like with just a couple of lenses, you may wish you had the faster lens.</p>

<p>Whichever you choose, you'll love, count on that. Buy carefully and you can always recoup your investment if you change your mind later...</p>

 

[cleeo_wright]

<p>Thanks everyone! FYI. I ordered my 70-200 f/4 IS this morning. I appreciate all of the thoughtful feedback.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>I use a 70-200 2.8 IS v1 on a 5D2, but if I were to do it over again I'd get the f4. The IS made me a believer and I would not be without it. I would also try some financial adjustments to get a 5D2. It's well worth the increase and the superior ISO performance makes the f4 very usable.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p><a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f9bc">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f9bc</a><br /> <a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f950">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f950</a><br /> On a 5D Mark II I absolutely love my Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC. I purchased this for $399 has VC is fairly light has really fast silent focusing and is water resistant. Absolutely the best lens I have ever purchased espeacially when considering the cost. I also shoot with Canon 85 1.2L, Canon 17-40 F4L and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 DX.<br /> I liked this lens so much I also purchased the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and IMOP the Tamron 70-300 is sharper than the Tamron 24-70 F2.8. Tamron has now also released a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. <br /> The links above were shot with the Tamron 70-300 VC but others in the same group were shot with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC.<br>

<br /> PS - those images are directly out of the camera no sharpening or post editing has been done at all.</p>

<p> </p>