70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
end

Archive 2004 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

petermendelson
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

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.

Thanks once again!

Peter

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:17 AM

Jay S
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

Peter,

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.

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:25 AM

petermendelson
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

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.

Regards,

Peter

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:37 AM

Tommy Lee
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

You may want to check out to see if the F4 at wide open has enough optical quality to meet your need (at f4). If not, can you live with f5.6?

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:39 AM

petermendelson
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

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?

Thanks once again,

Peter

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:45 AM

Jay S
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

Peter,

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).

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:48 AM

EB-1
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

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

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:55 AM

petermendelson
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

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.

Thanks,

Peter

Aug 15, 2004 at 03:59 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 70-200L 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200L f/4

Peter, how is the 2.8 only $250 more than the f4 lens? Seems way below the going price for this lens.

I was always happy with the f4 lens wide open. There are several pics in here @ f4 and 200mm:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=383777

Check out the 100% crop of MJ, also at f4 and 200mm:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2350176

Is that sharp enough?

Aug 15, 2004 at 04:02 AM


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