70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2011 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Michaelparris
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Have the f4 version aside from having 2.8 is there any significant advantages to having the 2.8 (mainly iq)....have had the f4 for quite awhile but have always been curious if it would be worth the extra weight.

Dec 28, 2011 at 03:33 PM

eskimochaos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Isn't IQ everything?

Dec 28, 2011 at 03:44 PM

RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Faster autofocus, better subject isolation.

Dec 28, 2011 at 03:50 PM

fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

At close range, near the MFD, the IQ of the F4IS takes a hit.
The 2.8IS does not.
The bokeh on the 2.8IS is also slightly better, even at the same aperture.

I also think the IS is 1 stop better, but I must admit I'm not sure on this one.

Hope this helps.

Dec 28, 2011 at 03:50 PM

Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

On some 1-series cameras the f/2.8 maximum aperture allows the camera to use higher-precision AF or cross-type AF sensors that would otherwise be standard precision linear AF sensors - even if you don't actually shoot at f/2.8.

Apart from AF it comes down to whether your need for f/2.8 compensates for the extra weight and bulk, and whether once you opt for extra weight and bulk you would rather have extra focal length too. IQ is not everything if you need to use TCs to get extra focal length. In that case the 100-400 can be better than the 70-200 + TC. That's why I downsized to the f/4 IS version of the 70-200 (to avoid carrying two large lenses) but Canon have kept me waiting a long time for an upgraded 100-400, which I'd buy next week if I could.

For me the 70-200 range is an awkward compromise - too long at the short end and too short at the long end. Extending either would be great but extending both would probably have too great an impact on IQ. I reckon that a high quality 50-200 would be a better partner with a 100-400.

- Alan

Dec 28, 2011 at 03:58 PM

Phil McNeil
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Both are outstanding lenses, pixel peeping will show that the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 mk I, and the 2.8 mk II is sharpest of the three, but "significant" advantages, not for most folks. For me the 2.8 advantage is more about DOF control and the extra stop of low light ability, not image quality.

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:06 PM

Jase1125
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I own both. The 2.8 has slightly faster af and bokeh. The extra stop is nice and sharpness is about the same. Both of my copies are extremely sharp wide open. The cost and weight differences are significant. Really comes down to how often you shoot in that focal range.

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:11 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I sold my 70-200/4L IS and 70-200/2.9L IS (Mk I) after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II. As Phil mentioned, the II is best of the lot. All are wickedly sharp in the centre. The f/4L IS is much better than the f/2.8L IS Mk I at the edges and in the corners, and the f/2.8L IS is slightly better than the f/4L IS in the corners. The f/2.8 L IS II also takes teleconverters better than the f/4L IS, partly because of its extra aperture stop.

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:15 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Phil McNeil wrote:
Both are outstanding lenses, pixel peeping will show that the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 mk I, and the 2.8 mk II is sharpest of the three, but "significant" advantages, not for most folks. For me the 2.8 advantage is more about DOF control and the extra stop of low light ability, not image quality.

This is perhaps the best way to look at it. People who want to buy such a lens often convince themselves that that newer, more expensive lens will create much sharper (or something else) photographs. But there are a few cautions here:

1. The differences, to the extent that they exist, are not "night and day" - more like 6:08 p.m. and 6:09 p.m. In the end, all of the Canon 70-200mm lenses are excellent performers and "sharp" enough to make prints as large as you'll ever need.

2. As far as the functional differences - keeping in mind that they are very small, too - you have to think about how relevant they are to your photography. For example, when someone tells you that the f/2.8 lens might focus faster, are you actually having a problem with your lens focusing fast enough? And how much "faster" are they talking about.

3. Also consider alternative approaches to getting some of what the f/2.8 zoom might provide. For example, while f2.8 can provide some degree of narrower DOF and nicer OOF background... a couple of the right non-L primes can give you maximum apertures between f/1.4 and f/2 for even more of this.

Factors like weight, bulk, and cost aside, there is little doubt that the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is the state of the art - but if you already have a 70-200 you own an excellent lens and the differences are likely to be quite tiny.

Take care,

Dan

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:24 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Aside from a nicer background blur at f2.8 the 70-200L II works really well with the 1.4x TC.

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:41 PM

NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I bought the new 2.8IS because I needed the faster lens for events, otherwise I was very satisfied with the F4IS and actually prefer it for its size and weight.

Dec 28, 2011 at 04:48 PM

dgdg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I love the f4 for family outdoor photos during the daytime, so 2.8 is not a big deal to me. If I had the 2.8, I would probably not use it as much due to weight and size.
All these lenses are sharp so don't split hairs here. Pick the lightest and cheapest that suits your practical needs.

Dec 28, 2011 at 05:20 PM

Michaelparris
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

Thanks for all the responses.....I think I will have to give the 2.8 a try

Dec 28, 2011 at 05:28 PM

RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

The mk 2 is best of the bunch.

Dec 28, 2011 at 05:34 PM

Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

From an IQ stand point, there isn't really much difference between the f/4 and f/2.8 versions, compared at the same apertures. Only thing is that the f/4 IS will take a penalty when used in the 160-200mm range at MFD - 1.5/2 meters.

Dec 28, 2011 at 05:37 PM

dmcharg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

It's really a question of F2.8 vs 4 and size/weight. I personally think the f4 version has to be one of best travel lens out there. I have the non is f4 version and will never sell it. The 70-200 range is so useful and very flexible. I think they are two very different lens. If you need something faster then there are various primes in the range. The 85 1.8 is a gem of a little lens and gives you 1.8 in an small package and then you have the 85 1.2, 100, 135 etc if you don't like the size of the 2.8.

Dec 28, 2011 at 06:06 PM

erikburd
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I bought the f/4 IS because of weight and price. It makes a difference when lugging lenses on the trails over a day or two. You will only see significant image quality differences with the f/2.8 lens if you pixel peep.

I use my 135L when I really need a fast aperture.

Dec 28, 2011 at 06:10 PM

Fjellfalck
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

gdanmitchell wrote:
Phil McNeil wrote:
Both are outstanding lenses, pixel peeping will show that the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 mk I, and the 2.8 mk II is sharpest of the three, but "significant" advantages, not for most folks. For me the 2.8 advantage is more about DOF control and the extra stop of low light ability, not image quality.

This is perhaps the best way to look at it. People who want to buy such a lens often convince themselves that that newer, more expensive lens will create much sharper (or something else) photographs. But there are a few cautions here:

1. The differences, to the extent that they exist, are not "night and day" - more like 6:08 p.m. and 6:09 p.m. In the end, all of the Canon 70-200mm lenses are excellent performers and "sharp" enough to make prints as large as you'll ever need.

2. As far as the functional differences - keeping in mind that they are very small, too - you have to think about how relevant they are to your photography. For example, when someone tells you that the f/2.8 lens might focus faster, are you actually having a problem with your lens focusing fast enough? And how much "faster" are they talking about.

3. Also consider alternative approaches to getting some of what the f/2.8 zoom might provide. For example, while f2.8 can provide some degree of narrower DOF and nicer OOF background... a couple of the right non-L primes can give you maximum apertures between f/1.4 and f/2 for even more of this.

Factors like weight, bulk, and cost aside, there is little doubt that the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is the state of the art - but if you already have a 70-200 you own an excellent lens and the differences are likely to be quite tiny.

Take care,

Dan

+ 1

Fjellfalck

Dec 28, 2011 at 06:13 PM

cputeq
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

For me, even though weight is a consideration, it came to bokeh.

I can't remember who's blog it was, but someone had a few test shots of a young girl at different apertures with the 70-200 lenses (unsure if it was just f/4 IS vs mk 1 or maybe just different apertures on the same lens).

The girl seemed to have shrubbery as a backdrop for the photo, maybe 10 feet or so behind. the F/4 bokeh just didn't look good enough for my purposes, some of which would be portraiture, and the f/2.8 looked very good. Obviously the 135L would look better, but I couldn't justify keeping both, so I kept my mk II.

Also, the MK II will AF with the 2x TC, which I plan to buy next for casual birding.

I've never really seen an f/4 IS shot I've not liked, though - seemed a very sharp lens, but since I need isolation and speed (shooting plays, etc), I have to deal with the weight of the 2.8

Dec 28, 2011 at 07:01 PM

NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 2.8 is ii

I've never found the bokeh of the F4IS to be objectionable. Nor have I found it soft or low in contrast at longer focal lengths near mdf. I think it is a stellar lens.

2013 © NCAndy

Slight crop at 144mm near mfd F5

Dec 28, 2011 at 07:43 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end