I've noticed I'm really not shooting the 70-200 2.8 IS wider than 3.5 most times, and really don't use it indoors too often. With the enormous increases in price on this lens I'm considering selling it, pocketing the difference and buying the much cheaper 70-200 f4 IS (now on rebate).

Has anyone done this move? Is the difference in sharpness really noticeable? The crops at The Digital Picture site show a huge difference, but the question is whether this translates into real-world gains. Granted the weight should be a lot less and the IS a bit better.

I have, and I find myself at times missing the 2.8L IS. I do mainly nature photog and it's nice to have all of your lenses 77mm (a minor point, but a point nonetheless.)

My main reason for moving to the f/4 IS was weight due to photo treks, hiking etc. In reality, I pack enough sh*t in my bag (Lowepro Photo Trekker, typically 2 bodies gripped and 3-4 lenses + CF tripod) that the difference between the two is minimal.

Occasionally I do some mixed shooting and could use the extra stop of light. I've been teetering on the idea of the 2.8L non-IS, but I really think I'm going to move back to 2.8 IS.

hope this helps somewhat!

The f4 IS is definiltey sharper...it's prime like in its sharpness.
But I don't see sharpness as the differentiating factor between these lenses.
If you don't need f2.8, then yeah, a move to the f4 IS is perfectly reasonable.

That's basically the same boat I'm in, using it for landscapes and occasionally for wider angle bird photos or wildlife, so it helps to get an objective opinion. The sharpness is a bit lacking at 2.8, but since I don't shoot there often anyways, I'm sure there's not nearly that much difference from f4 and up.

I have both. The 70-200/4L IS is a bit sharper, but the f/2.8 is plenty sharp for large prints and significant crops. In comparison to the f/2.8, the f/4 is a pleasure to carry around in a bag, and has fine balance with a xxD and xD body (without grip). I really prefer to use the f/2.8 on 1DII bodies, even in good light, as the bigger lens balances so well with the bigger camera. As long as you don't need faster than f/4, the f/4L IS is a great lens.

I briefly had both lenses and returned the 2.8 IS. While the 70-200 2.8IS IQ was overall good, I found the lense lacking at 200mm and F2.8. I had to stop the 2.8 IS past F4 to get equivalent IQ to the F4IS at F4. If you need 2.8 and IS then you already have your answer. If you don't need the 2.8, the F4 may be the better option. For me, I found the 135 F2 + 70-200 F4 IS to be a better combination. -Jason

Peyton wrote:
I have, and I find myself at times missing the 2.8L IS. I do mainly nature photog and it's nice to have all of your lenses 77mm (a minor point, but a point nonetheless.)

My main reason for moving to the f/4 IS was weight due to photo treks, hiking etc. In reality, I pack enough sh*t in my bag (Lowepro Photo Trekker, typically 2 bodies gripped and 3-4 lenses + CF tripod) that the difference between the two is minimal.

Occasionally I do some mixed shooting and could use the extra stop of light. I've been teetering on the idea of the 2.8L non-IS, but I really think I'm going to move back to 2.8 IS.

hope this helps somewhat!

Why the grips if you want to save weight? Doesn't seem like you'd be shooting long portrait sessions on a hike.

The difference is quite noticeable. You don't have to be hiking or doing anything strenuous. When you are just walking around town you can really feel the different. It is not just the weight but also the bulk.

Jerry

My 2.8IS always stayed home due to its weight, but my 4IS comes with me whenever I need 200mm. So I dump 2.8IS and now have 4IS w/ 135L.

No experience with the f/2.8 zoom here...and for the price and weight, I don't think I ever will. My f/4 IS is simply great for:

1. sharpness
2. minimal aberrations
3. great IS
4. size/bulk/weight/heft/girth/mass/diameter is not bad at all...

cons:

A. Kind of expensive compared to the non-IS f/4
B. Putty white: why Canon, why? Guaranteed attention, bleah...
C 200mm, with minimum focus distance - I won't make that mistake again, with mine. it cannot focus on what you want. But, that's what a macro should be for, anyway - I never use it like this (but am precluded from doing so anyway)

Opposite here. Sold my f4 IS and got the f2.8 IS for the extra stop. Great decision for me as I find it much more useful to shoot portraits and events/shows with low light, where the f4 zoom stayed in the bag.

I have not used the f/2.8 IS since getting the f/4 IS 2.5 years ago.

EBH

Sold my 2.8 IS, bought the 4 IS, and have never once missed the 2.8 IS. The 4 IS is a joy to use, and much easier to take along.

If you shoot a lot towards the long end of the lens, and especially if you shoot action, it's nice to have the greater focus accuracy you get with f2.8 and faster lenses.

According to your profile, you have a 1D3: On that camera, with an f2.8 or faster lens, you get a total of 19 high-precision, cross-type AF points, but with an f4 lens, only the center AF point acts as a cross-type. The additional cross-type sensors are really nice to have when you're shooting birds in flight or individual sports (e.g. skiers or skaters).

I own and use both of them.

They are both really great. For landscapes, I use the f/4 IS because of weight only.
For this kind of shooting I do not need the f/2.8.

For portraits - the 70-2000 IS f/2.8 is the obvious choice and I use it at f/2.8 most of the time.

Regarding sharpness: The f/4 IS is sharper in theory, but to be honest, both are really sharp and the difference is not visible in prints at all. For a move from f/2.8 IS to f/4 IS, other criteria than sharpness should be used

I just purchased a used f4 IS. My initial impressions are: wow! The lens does feel like a toy lens, but that's not a bad thing. It's so much less bulky and lighter and easy to just throw in the bag., whereas with the 2.8 you really notice you're shooting with a substantial lens. I will have to see how much I miss the extra stop, but I doubt it will make a difference as I hardly shot the 2.8 wider than 3.5 or so. Oh yes, the IQ - incredible. I can't believe you can get this performance out of a zoom. At f4 it's easily sharper than the 2.8 @ f4 and well beyond f2.8 on the 2.8. The IS difference is noticeable, but with lower lens mass it will take some change of technique, as the heavier weight on the 2.8 dampened out vibrations more. The only thing I could fault it for is the non-standard 67mm filter size, but that is a byproduct of the smaller size.

A few snaps for those curious (all at f4, 1D III): http://www.gschneiderphoto.com/pics/70-200f4/

I have a 200mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS at 200mm is as sharp. I also get with a 1.4x TC an easy 280mm on my 1DMkII N . It works very good with pro bodies ,as the lens AF's FAST...Rich

I'd "downgraded" from the 2.8 IS to the 4.0 IS a couple of years ago, and never missed the former. I'm nuts about sharpness, and the 4.0 IS is way sharper than the 2.8 IMO. The only advantage the 2.8 has is the wider aperture capability.

I went from the f/2.8 to the f/4 IS some months ago. It was a decision strictly based on weight and ease of mobility and handling. I have no regrets. The f/4 is the sharpest zoom I've ever owned with very fast focus. I do think, however, that the f/2.8 has somewhat better contrast and color ... not by much, mind you. But I do find it noticeable in my own comparisons.

- Steve

I have both and a 200 f/2, and find myself primarily shooting the 200 (my favorite lens out of the 10 I own), then the f/4, while the f/2.8 collects dust. IMO the f/4 is superior to the f/2.8 in every way, but that one stop of light (which in many circumstances is compensated for with its superior, newer generation IS).