Ok, I recenty posted a question asking for a comparison of the 70-200L IS versus the 70-200L f/4. People posted some very helpful responses and I appreciate it - it helped me decide to sell the IS lens because I don't need it for my purposes. I don't shoot in gyms, or any other organized sports, and usually use it outside in decent light.
Now that I have just sold the IS lens, I am either going to buy a new 70-200L f/4, or a used but mint 70-200L f/2.8.
The question is whether the used 2.8 version I may buy is worth $250 more than the new f/4 version. I love the size of the f/4 and was looking forward to carrying a lighter and smaller zoom lens. On the other hand, $250 is not a huge difference over the long run, and having an extra stop will surely help in some situations. If I go for the 70-200L 2.8, it will require me to put off buying the 85 1.8 like I was planning to do, but if it's the right decision, it's the right decision.
I am going to get a 135mm f/2 for sure. Maybe having the 135mm f/2 will make having the 2.8 over the f/4 not so important, since I can bring out the 135 (and 1.4x tc) when the light is low
Can anyone help guide me a bit here? Right now I am leaning towards getting the f/4 version for its smaller size and weight and lower cost, especially since people seem to be thrilled with its optical performance.
If you shoot outside in good light, then I think you would be fine with the f/4. No need to carry around a big heavy 2.8 lens for daytime shots. Frankly, my view is that if you don't have IS then the weight and cost penalty is not worth the extra stop.
I used my f/4 quite successfully in Africa during the daytime in situations when I did not need the reach of my 100-400. Not having f/2.8 was not a problem. Sure, at dusk the f/4 was too slow but 1 extra stop would not have made much difference in most situations. In such situations, I would have needed an IS lens.
The f/4 is so much smaller and lighter and handier than my 100-400 (which is about the size/weight of the 2.8 non-IS) and I wished that I could have used it more. In fact, I am planning on getting an 1.4x extender before my next safari so I can use the little f/4 more frequently during the day time.
Thanks Jay - that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.
I have the 1.4x extender already so that should help with extra reach too.
The only thing is that I have the 1DmkI, and I know the vertical focusing cross-sensors in the middle of the lens only activate with lenses that are f/2.8 or faster. So I may lose a tiny bit of focusing quickness and accuracy with the f/4, but I imagine it should still be fine for my needs.
From what I have read, the F4 is still quite good wide open.
I just realized that the 70-200L 2.8 comes with a tripod collar, which costs $115 extra for the F4! If I factor this in too, there is really only a $135 difference between these lenses (although I don't know if I would definitely buy the tripod collar for the F4 since I have a sturdy tripod and camera). A new 2.8 sells for just about twice the price of the F4. That, plus the issue of the vertical focusing cross-sensors, makes this a hard decision.
I am still leaning towards the F4, though. If the new version of the 10D that is rumoured to be coming out is spectacular, than I may just want to sell my 1DmkI to get it, and then with the F4 it would make a nice (relatively) compact package.
Can anyone comment on how usable the F4 is wide open?
I had not considered that. Hopefully you will get feedback from wildlife photographers who use the 1D -- f/2.8 telephotos (300, 400, 500, 600) are quite expensive and I imagine that many use the f/4.
If there is a camera shop nearby, drop by and have a look at the 70-200 f/4 in person. Its a joy to handle and it very easy to tote around all day. That may help you to decide if it turns out that you will lose a bit of focusing speed/accuracy if you don't use an f/2.8 lens. That said, will shaking from tired (and not too steady) arms overcome the benefit from using a f/2.8 lens. Just a rhetorical question on my part since I don't have a 1D. I have thought of getting one (or maybe the 10D successor) for my next safari (the 1D mk 2 is out of reach).
I don't understand why you would sell a 70-200/2.8 IS for a non-IS. The difference in image quality is not noticeable, the size is the same and the non-IS is only a little lighter weight. (I'm selling one of my 70-200 IS lenses to get a 70-200/4 because it is smaller.) I also have a 70-200 non-IS that I have not used in over two years.
EB, I was not planning to sell the IS for the non-IS, it's just that this potential good deal came up right now on the 2.8 non-IS so I am considering it.
However, I think I will probably stick to my plan of buying the F/4. My planned lens line-up is: 17-40L, 24-70L, 50mm 1.8, 85 1.8, 135mm f/2, and 70-200L f/4. If I were to get the 2.8 instead of the f/4, I will have to drop the 85 1.8 or 17-40L from this equation right now, which I don't want to do.
