I just ordered a 2.8 IS and was about to sell my f/4, but now I'm getting cold feet because it's such a fantastic lens. Does anybody have both? If I was rich I would definitely keep both because of the weight difference, but I'm not.

I don't have either (looking to get a Sigma 70-200/2.8 or Canon 70-200/4 soon), but I've never heard one owner of the 70-200/2.8 IS say anything bad about it You made a fine choice.

I was just thinking on bright days I could use the f/4 and save myself the weight. Hmmm.

I don't have an f/4, but I do have the 2.8 IS and it is a wonderful lens. The IS is awesome. I don't think you'll do badly moving from the 4 to the 2.8 IS.

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) and used to have the f/4 version. I still miss the f/4 on some days (it was just so nice and light to carry around).

If you can afford it, keep both. You wouldn't be the first!

One of the first things you should notice is that the f4 has a shorter focus distance....

and of course the faster stop... image quality should be the same...

teriba wrote:
I just ordered a 2.8 IS and was about to sell my f/4, but now I'm getting cold feet because it's such a fantastic lens. Does anybody have both? If I was rich I would definitely keep both because of the weight difference, but I'm not.

They both get rave reviews. Keep the f/4 until you've had the 2.8IS for awhile and see what your needs are then. And yes, many do have both.

Had the F4 first, picked up a 2.8 IS two months later. Keep both for 3 months. Sold the F4. Both are great, but the extra weight did not bother me at all, and the IS is great and 2.8 nice. If you can keep both for awhile, you can decide, but for me the F4 was sitting home all the time.

I currently have both (got an IS from dell), but I'm going to stick with the f/4. Most of my shots are from a tripod, where the f/4 is at least as good if not bettern than the f/2.8 and the f/2.8 is a lot heavier to carry all over the place. I don't miss the extra stop of light, but it's nice when shooting handheld in marginal light to be able to stop down to f/8 for DOF and know the IS will keep the image steady enough. If only the f/4 had IS, it'd be my perfect lens!

I have both, and I find needs for both. If I am taking a long and fast lens while on safari, I might bring along the f/4 lens to save weight. If I really really need the extra stop of light or IS, I use the f/2.8 IS lens.

Keep both for a while and see what works for you.

Dump the f/4 as the 2.8 is the better lens of the two .

had both, actually had all three versions (including non IS) I like the F4 version the best. It's light and sharp as a tack. I picked up a 135 f2 for those times I need the speed.

I have both. Can't bring myself to part with the f/4. My f2.8 IS is a great lens, but I doubt that it is any sharper than the f/4 and it sure is bulkier and heavier. The f/4 is a great lens for backpacking, hiking, etc. Anytime actually, that you don't feel compromised by not having the extra stop or the IS. The f/2.8 IS is my "event" lens when I need all the speed I can get and the IS too. I also like the idea that if my f/2.8 should be out of service for some reason, the f/4 makes a great backup! As far as I'm concerned, with the f/4 you're getting a "LITE" version of the f2.8 for 1/3rd the price! Yeah, I plan on keeping both, at least for now.

Tony Bonanno

I've had both, and while I kept the f2.8 IS, the f4 is an excellent lens. It is much easier to pack and hold around yor neck all day. In most circumstances the stop and lack of IS are not a factor, but it's those few times that make it worth the weight.

Sold the f4 when I got a Dell 2.8 IS. Would have been nice to keep but using the money recovered to pick up something else with unique capabilities has been great, in my case the 85 1.8. I have found 2.8 is not fast enough for some sports in low light. The first day I had the 85 out, I shot a pic at 1.8 and 1/200 at ISO 800. Absolutely the sharpest low light pic I have ever taken, no soft wide open with this lens.

The 2.8 IS is an awsome lens, You won't miss the f4 at all.

I have Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 L and wouldn't get rid of either one. Both serve a purpose.

I've had both and don't like either: IS is too heavy and f4 lacks IS.

If the f4 had IS, I'd like that one.

70-200 is only useful to me in the studio, and for that I don't need 2.8.

I'm glad to see there a ready market for these lenses, though, as I'm about to sell my 2.8 IS.

I have both lenses and I intend to keep them. Sometimes I do not want to carry a lot of heavy stuff for long hikes and the F4 works out perfect. I made extensive comparison test shots at every aperture and focal length. I do not see much difference between the two but it appears that the F4 is a touch better.

A few weeks ago, I bought an IS version from a member here, really nice in indoor situations. I like to be able to handhold inside the house to take picture of my children. I don't like to use flash unless it is really necessary. The IS and extra stop make a big difference. But it is also quite big and heavy. My arms would hurt if I use it for extended period of time. I thought I would sell the f4, but then I decided to keep it, since it is much lighter, and the image quality is outstanding, very close to f2.8 version. I would hate to let such a fine glass go. I really wish there is a f4 IS version. But I guess you can't have the best of both worlds. That made me to have them both. Maybe I am too attached to them.

>>But I guess you can't have the best of both worlds.<<

You certainly can. If Canon can put IS in the 300 f/4, they can do the same with the 70-200.

I am sure Canon can do it. I think it is more of a marketing decision. Obviously they don't want to introduce a f4 IS to eat up the fat margin f2.8 IS is enjoying now.

I really liked my 70-200 f/4L. The size/weight/image quality are stellar. I sold it to afford the f/2.8L IS. I'm glad I bought the 2.8 IS but I really wish I had kept the f/4 for those times when I don't want to lug around the 2.8 and don't need that extra stop or IS (which is actually more often than I give my my shooting style credit for).

If I did it over, I'd have kept both. But now, saving up the obsession fund I'm not likely to repurchase the f/4 - that is unless my wife starts shooting and doesn't want to lug around the IS .

Just shot a theatrical performance with the 2.8--hand held IS can't be beat particularly when shutter speeds are lower then optimum--

Yeah..dump the f4 to me..I'm looking to buy one very soon...