Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2011 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?
  
 
ZoneV_Nikon
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


This question is strictly for those who bought the 70-200/4 IS or the f/2.8 non-IS. Assuming both were available when you purchased, why did you pick the smaller, slower lens with the IS over the larger f/2.8 lens without IS? Or vice-versa? Both cost pretty much the same amount, and I eventually hope to purchase one of the two as I establish a Canon kit. I personally would lean more toward the f/2.8 lens without the IS, especially as higher ISOs become common, and achieve much the same as what the IS can achieve. (Of course you could also use that same argument in favor of the f/4 IS.) Note, this question is not about the f/4 non-IS version or the f/2.8 IS versions. Strictly the f/4 with IS and the f/2.8 without IS. Do you agree with or regret your decision years later?


Dec 06, 2011 at 10:50 PM
gwaww
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I tried both and ended up with the 2.8. I guess I need 2.8 as most of my shooting is in available light. I had what I believe was a stellar copy of the 2.8. Before I sold it, I also tried a version II IS and found very little difference in IQ between the two. The 2.8 is heavy, and white and conspicuous. But it is a great lens. I found that 90+% of my shots taken were at or close to 200 mm. I am gradually converting to primes and am very satisfied with a 200 2.8 prime I picked up.


Dec 06, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I mostly shoot in good light and I handhold 98% of the time. When shooting motor sports, I walk the track (Road Atlanta is 2.5 miles of hills), with two camera bodies, a 17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 300 f/4L IS, a couple water bottles, 430 EX II, extra camera batteries, extra flash batteries, and a small folding chair/stool.

I appreciate the lighter weight, handling, and portability of the 70-200 f/4L IS.

Jefferson



Dec 06, 2011 at 11:10 PM
gpop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I decided on the f4 with IS because it was smaller, and from everything I could find on the net the f4 seemed very well loved, was reportedly sharper.
I never liked it. there was nothing wrong with it, I just couldn't fall in love with it for some reason.




Dec 06, 2011 at 11:12 PM
eosuser2020
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Chose F4 IS due to light weight and excellent output. For me, heavier lenses tend to spend more time in my bag rather than on camera.


Dec 06, 2011 at 11:16 PM
TheWengler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I went with the f4. It's lighter and I stop down anyway for my landscapes.


Dec 06, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


When I purchased the 4.0 IS I did a Test with 2.8 IS and no IS before. The 4.0 was sharper then the 2.8, weight half and had a much better IS then the 2.8 IS had.
That - and IQ has chanched with version II of 2.8. The weight has not.
I like any further stop, because it gives one more freedom when motives move.
But I do not do sports, I do people and events. Somtimes for 3-8 hours.
Itīs a big difference, carring around half the weight for hours.

Next to that todays cameras like 5D MK II enable you to use ISO 6.400 for shootings. That gives you same shooting times like ISO 3.200 did before with a one stop less apperture.

Great! If you have to look for the money (and some of us - like me - have to) the saved amount of bugs gives you another great additional "L" lens to get your business done, too (e.g.: 24-105 4.0 "L" IS USM or 24-70 2.8 "L" with some money added).

Compared to my forewriter I found out that up to 60% of my 70-200 shots went up to 200mm, too. Most of them I would not be able to hold, even not with a lens twice as havy with one stop advantage. The IS makes that possible and reduces the need of 2.8 to 5-10% I guess (in my case).

Ralph



Dec 06, 2011 at 11:20 PM
erikburd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I got the f/4 because it was half the weight, half the price and sharper. I generally shoot in good light when using it, so if I really need f/2.8, I whip out my trusty 135L f/2.


Dec 06, 2011 at 11:36 PM
safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Neither. I got the Pipe and couldn't be happier. F4 is too slow for nice bokeh for me.


Dec 06, 2011 at 11:43 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I've had both and they are both fine lenses, with the f/4 IS having a slight edge. After a while I stopped using f/2.8 as the main choice. The question is how often you need that aperture and what shutter speeds you use. Other than sports and some PJ work, I'd rather have IS and a smaller, lighter lens.

EBH



Dec 07, 2011 at 01:07 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


My first 70-200mm L was the f/4 IS. After that, I've owned 6 f/2.8 versions including two of the MK II IS versions. All were good, the MK II is supurb.

However, the only one I kept was the f/4. I've switched to prime lenses for low light use, and in good light, the f/4 works out to be light and easy to handle.

However, I've seen people lugging around that big and heavy f/2.8 at Yellowstone in the middle of a hot and bright sunny day. It looks out of place to me.



Dec 07, 2011 at 02:03 AM
TDiamond
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I still have my 70-200 2.8 non IS and I just got the 70-200 f4 IS. Ultimately, I'm not shooting too much in the way of sports right now and didn't really need the 2.8. It's alspo a pain to drag around. The 70-200 f4 is much smaller and lighter. Also, IS is gold and for what I'm doing now, much more useful than one shallower depth of field.


Dec 07, 2011 at 02:05 AM
Sgt93
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


70-200 2.8 IS II. I love to shoot in low light/avail light so it only makes sense. So far I am loving this lens on the 5D2


Dec 07, 2011 at 02:14 AM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


This question is dumb.

You either need f/2.8 or you don't.



Dec 07, 2011 at 02:25 AM
quicksilver33
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


EB-1 wrote:
The question is how often you need that aperture and what shutter speeds you use. Other than sports and some PJ work, I'd rather have IS and a smaller, lighter lens.


I chose the F4 IS for this reason - bc I don't need high shutter speeds and the 2.8 versions are much bigger and heavier. I use mine mostly for landscape so IS and a slow aperture are no prob.



Dec 07, 2011 at 02:34 AM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


I started with the 70-200/2.8. I traded it for the f/4 IS, and have been very pleased with it. I am somewhat tempted by the new Mark II, but can't really convince myself to get rid of the lens I already have since I don't need 2.8 (though I'm sure I could find reasons to use it ).


Dec 07, 2011 at 02:35 AM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


ZoneV_Nikon wrote:
This question is strictly for those who bought the 70-200/4 IS or the f/2.8 non-IS. Assuming both were available when you purchased, why did you pick the smaller, slower lens with the IS over the larger f/2.8 lens without IS? Or vice-versa? Both cost pretty much the same amount, and I eventually hope to purchase one of the two as I establish a Canon kit. I personally would lean more toward the f/2.8 lens without the IS, especially as higher ISOs become common, and achieve much the same as what the IS can achieve. (Of course you could also use
...Show more

I originally added a 70-200 2.8 non-IS to my 100-300L (shortly later the 70-300 IS instead) to get the speed for shooting indoor and night time sports and for more blur during daytime sports.

Later when I stopped shooting indoor sports I decided to sell off the 2.8 non-IS and 70-300 IS for the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 300 2.8 IS was my main outdoor sports lens and I could get buy with the as a f/4 IS for wide angle field sports lens since I wasn't shooting for a serious paper or anything at that point. The f/4 IS was a lot more compact and lighter than the 2.8 non-IS so it was a nice travel/run around all day lens, jsut small enough to fit in cargo pants pocket to be stashed away and not be a bother. The 2.8 forget stashing that in a pocket and it was a drag to run around with it all day long hour after hour and have it taking up half the table when you stop to eat, etc.

The f/4 IS performed a bit better optically over the entire range and it was a range that with a FF body now on hand was fit to make it serve as a primary walk around lens, so a tiny little bonus there to get better image quality for what would be my single most used lens. The IS was very nice for all the times when going to the tripod was too much of a pain too annoying to others one was with etc. and quite useful for all the non-sports stuff. While larger and heavier than the 70-300 IS it AF sooo much more reliably, a huge plus an dit had slightly better image quality at the wider end and better at the longer end. With a TC it had almost the same reach and actually did better f/5.6 280mm than the 70-300 IS (although a tiny bit worse f/8 280mm). Swapping a TC on and off was a major pain and one that often I ended up not bothering with. And by selling the 2.8 non-IS and 70-300 IS and getting the f/4 IS I actually ended up with a bit of $$ back in pocket at the end of it too which never hurts (although a few years later it was to go back away when swapped this one for the 70-300L).

And just recently I switched to the 70-300L since I get a bit better quality near 70mm and a trace better near 200mm and much better above 200mm and not too much worse over the rest of the range other than around the middle of the 70-200 range and don't have to mess with a pain in the neck, slow, tricky TC swap on and off game. I do lose f/4 200mm which is a bit of a shame (less BG blur, doesn't work as well with extension tubes when using AF, etc.) and the non-constant f/4 70-200 makes it even worse yet for action (although for something like visiting a stadium, no press pass, the f/4-f/5.6 variable aperture 70-300 is better than beign stuck 70-200 or having constant f/5.6 the whole way), I mostly try to use the 300 2.8 for much of that. The pluses outweigh the minuses for my situation. If I ever did truly serious action shooting again I'd probably have to grab a 70-200 2.8 anyway.

AF is the same between the f/4IS and and 70-300L other than super dark conditions and the sad and surprising lack of a focus distance limited on the 70-300L, the IS is as good or better on the 7-300L.



Dec 07, 2011 at 03:01 AM
galenapass
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


EB-1 wrote:
I've had both and they are both fine lenses, with the f/4 IS having a slight edge. After a while I stopped using f/2.8 as the main choice. The question is how often you need that aperture and what shutter speeds you use. Other than sports and some PJ work, I'd rather have IS and a smaller, lighter lens.

EBH


+1

I tend to use the f4 version mostly for travel. The f/2.8 stayed at home because of size and weight, which I did not find convenient. Eventually it was sold leaving only the f/4 version. If I need a faster lens my next purchase will be the 135L.



Dec 07, 2011 at 04:31 AM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Might be a good idea to couple the f/4 IS with a fast 85, that's already 2 1/3 to 3 stop difference.


Dec 07, 2011 at 07:32 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Which did you pick: 70-200/2.8 or f/4 IS?


Pro 70-200 f/4 IS:
- light(er) and small(er)
- great IQ, but decreased IQ when used at MFD in the 160-200mm range (so don't expect macro performance)
- 4 stop IS (doesn't freeze motion, so no substitute for faster aperture)
- great built quality, including weather sealed mount

Pro 70-200 2.8 non-IS:
- 2.8
- great IQ
- great built quality, but big and heavy

Some say get a 70-200 f/4 IS combined with a fast prime. That way you have the best of both worlds. Unless you need speed and versatility/flexibility in one (zoom)lens. In that case I would opt for the 2.8 version.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is an excellent travel and studio lens. But it is lacking in versatility because of the "slow" f/4.



Dec 07, 2011 at 07:59 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password