Not to hijack the OP, but for you shooting with a 1D/Ds series body, how does the 70-200 f/4 IS balance out with the tripod collar? I've talked to a few folks about reversing the collar when shooting with the additional 1.4x with say a 5D/II with grip or a 1D/Ds series to compensate for the overall weight....
2OHOH2 wrote:
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).
Yes, except the f/4 might not get you to the shutter speed needed to stop action ... one of the circumstances in which the f/2.8 is invaluable.
I have not "made this move," but I have done a fair amount of research on the four Canon EF 70-200mm L zooms.
First sharpness is not a significant differentiating factor among these lenses. While you might hear that lens A is "sharper" than lens B, the notions about which is best are inconsistent at best and any differences among these lenses are truly trivial - and all four are regarded as being among the "sharpest" zooms of their type.
As I write so often: "Choosing among the four Canon EF 70-200mm L zooms on the basis of sharpness is like choosing between four quarters and a dollar bill on the basis of value."
On the other hand there are fine functional and practical reasons for choosing any of the four. The reasons include the importance to you of several factors including: f/2.8, image-stabilization, size, weight, cost, etc.
I use primarily the non-IS f/4 version, primarily because I almost always use it on a tripod, I don't need f/2.8 in such a lens for my purposes, and because of the circumstances of my shooting the smaller and lighter lens is attractive. (For the record, it produces very "sharp" images that can be printed at sizes larger than most will ever print) I might well have gotten the IS version had it been available at the time of my purchase.
Am I recommending that you get the same lens I have? Of course not. But if you don't feel that you get value out of the f/2.8 lens and you think that selling it and moving to the f/4 IS lens would be a good decision, there are no "sharpness" or other image quality issues that should discourage you.
Dan
Greg Schneider wrote:
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.
veroman wrote:
Yes, except the f/4 might not get you to the shutter speed needed to stop action ... one of the circumstances in which the f/2.8 is invaluable.
- Steve
Exactly, which is where the f/2 comes in very handy... though a bump in ISO isn't a bad solution either
< regularly shoots wedding stuff at 200mm, f/2, ISO3200, 1/80 on a 5DII
gdanmitchell wrote:
First sharpness is not a significant differentiating factor among these lenses.
I strongly disagree. Having owned three or four brand new f/2.8's, my first f/4 was significantly sharper at f/4 vs. f/4, so I still own it, and use it regularly. Not saying that the f/2.8 is a slouch (I used to think it was Canon's Holy Grail), it's just that the f/4 is better.
