Canon 70-200 f2.8L or 70-200 f4L IS

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
I have about $1,250 to spend on a 70-200.

The 70-200 2.8 and f4 IS are about the same price, but I'm having a tough time making a choice.
Right now I need it for full daylight on a tripod. IS is not 100% essential, but will always save a few shots with vibration, high winds etc. The 70-200 2.8 is one of my favorite lenses and will be better in low light for the future, but weighs in at x2 for travel which I do a lot. Any thoughts?
 
Personally I got a lovely used F4 non IS for $300 used.

The beast is too heavy and around $2k

Did not make sense for me - no one can hold focus at 2.8 anyway

In 2004 when 400ISO was the top end of 'high ISO' that extra stop was gold - no longer IMO

S
 
morgan_moore said:
Personally I got a lovely used F4 non IS for $300 used.

The beast is too heavy and around $2k

Did not make sense for me - no one can hold focus at 2.8 anyway

In 2004 when 400ISO was the top end of 'high ISO' that extra stop was gold - no longer IMO

S
Click to expand...

Yeah I just did a shoot this week with a rented 5Dmk3 and 70-200 2.8 non is and I was usually around f8. You're right the days of film and not enough light are way in the "dark ages". Now you just dial up the ISO and in the worst case use neat video.
These days I'm more concerned with over weight baggage on my flights. I had to pay $50 last week for 7KG. Lucky they didn't weigh my carry on bags.
Thanks Morgan f4 sounds good to me too.
 
Really its all about the jobs - yep my back and weight are super important.

Ive also got lenses like an 85/2* 50/1.4 if it gets really moody

Trade offs


* and weirdly Ive got the 85/2 after owning a 85 1.4 that I decided was too heavy!
 
One positive is that the 70-200 f4 IS is better optically than the 70-200 f2.8 v1 Not a ton but is pretty close the new f2.8 version. I did this swap myself but more for weight reasons on long studio photo sessions. Can't go wrong with either but the f4 has a lot going for it.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Really its all about the jobs
Click to expand...

Right now the job is at the long end with a 600D and the 3X crop so IS is helpful with vibration and wind. I also need a 3 stop ND to get the lens open to f8 so the f2.8 is at the other end of the decision spectrom. The weight factor is the big one and with the 2.8 weighing in at .75kg over the f4 it will leave me room for at least one fast prime and still be lighter.
 
id get the IS version (is there a F4 IS?) - I got my non IS version for reasons of cost :)

as for stabiliing at 600?mm well IMO its a challenge - and I have an arrow25 and aluminium satchlers

S
 
I bought the f/4L IS version, it's lighter and sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS... and it was going to be used on a FF camera, where f/4 is shallow enough for me. On APS-C, it would be a tough call, and I'd probably look into other options as well, such as the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
 
I had a Stigma - it stopped talking to the camera after 6 months and has ingressed sand to the focus in a way that my nikon and canon lenses have not while subjected to the same abuse.

The focus ring is also made of the plastic that makes you feel ill, not rubber.

Very expensive lens being a doorstop after 6 months.

S
 
morgan_moore said:
id get the IS version (is there a F4 IS?) - I got my non IS version for reasons of cost :)

as for stabiliing at 600?mm well IMO its a challenge - and I have an arrow25 and aluminium satchlers

S
Click to expand...

Yeah the 70-200 f4L IS is about $1,100. It's a different set of internal lenses than the non IS. I don't think you would be able to see any difference under normal conditions from one to the other, but in my case the IS will make a difference. I bought the Canon 55-250 IS a few years ago over the 70-200 4L non IS because the job was shooting out of the back of a Nissan March for 24 hours. The lens was only $200 but after testing turned out to be very sharp. I've been using it on this recent job and have a 2nd camera mounted on a Miller head with a bridge plate and a 60D with a Bower 500mm f8. So the equivalent focal length is 500mm on the 60D and 750mm with the 250 + x3 crop on the 600D. the IQ looks similar but the IS is definitely more stable even 250mm longer. So I'm finally sold on IS and a standard must have for this kind of shooting.
 
morgan_moore said:
I had a Stigma - it stopped talking to the camera after 6 months and has ingressed sand to the focus in a way that my nikon and canon lenses have not while subjected to the same abuse.

The focus ring is also made of the plastic that makes you feel ill, not rubber.

Very expensive lens being a doorstop after 6 months.

S
Click to expand...


Mine has been performing admirably since purchased new in 2006.
 
I have the f/4 IS and it's an incredible lens. On the crop cams there simply is no sharper better looking image available.

I'd highly recommend the IS version as it's optically better and can be shot hand held when needed. While not perfect, handheld it can make or break your shoot.

Here's a few hand held shots with my T3i and the 70-200 f/4 IS you might like. As a redneck from Utah, this was a pipe dream of a lifetime come true :)

https://vimeo.com/69326310

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
I had the non IS 2.8 since the mid 1990's and recently got the 2.8 IS vII ...wow. The 2.8 non IS lens was always a great piece of glass, but the IS makes a huge difference for filming (which since you're posting on DVX I assume you'll be doing a lot of). I can't speak much to the general quality of the f4 IS, but IS on a lens of this length is a real necessity, unless you have a really, really good tripod. I used my 2.8 IS II to shoot second angle on interviews with just a monopod so I could move around and it worked flawlessly.
 
Samuel H said:
I bought the f/4L IS version, it's lighter and sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS... and it was going to be used on a FF camera, where f/4 is shallow enough for me. On APS-C, it would be a tough call, and I'd probably look into other options as well, such as the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
Click to expand...

I looked at the reviews on that Tamron. It's very sharp and overall looks like a great value, but the weight is double the Canon 70-200 f4.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens52.6 oz(1490g)3.5 x 7.8"(88.8 x 199mm)77mm2010
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Lens50.5 oz(1430g)3.4 x 7.8"(86.4 x 197.6mm)77mm2011
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens51.9 oz(1470g)3.4 x 7.4"(85.8 x 188.3mm)77mm2012
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens46.6 oz(1320g)3.5 x 7.6"(90 x 194mm)77mm2008
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens46.2 oz(1310g)3.3 x 7.6"(85 x 194mm)77mm1995
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens26.8 oz(760g)3 x 6.8"(76 x 172mm)67mm2006
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens24.9 oz(705g)3 x 6.8"(76 x 172mm)67mm1999


Here is an interesting comment from the review on the digital picture that keeps reminding me what I need this lens for. I'm shooting action video in full daylight at 1/50th sec. using heavy ND filters to be able to open the lens up

"You buy a 70-200 f/2.8 to use at f/2.8. Otherwise, buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. It will give you modestly better image quality in a smaller and lighter package – with a lower price tag. Thus, I feel that for most, the Tamron VC is a better choice than the Sigma OS from an image sharpness perspective. "
 
Before the new version of the 2.8 zoom was released, the f/4 IS was the best of the bunch. Having had the f/4 and now owning the f/4 IS, the difference in glass and IS is apparent, in my opinion. That's saying a lot because the non-IS is an excellent performer. Regarding the question about the 2.8 zoom, frankly I don't see the point in 2.8 zooms in general. Usually much more expensive and heavier and bigger than their f/4 counterparts, with today's camera's great high ISO performance, the only remaining difference is the shallower depth of field from one stop. Hardly worth it. Better to get f/4 zooms (with IS when possible) and fast primes.
 
Jordan_S said:
Before the new version of the 2.8 zoom was released, the f/4 IS was the best of the bunch. Having had the f/4 and now owning the f/4 IS, the difference in glass and IS is apparent, in my opinion. That's saying a lot because the non-IS is an excellent performer. Regarding the question about the 2.8 zoom, frankly I don't see the point in 2.8 zooms in general. Usually much more expensive and heavier and bigger than their f/4 counterparts, with today's camera's great high ISO performance, the only remaining difference is the shallower depth of field from one stop. Hardly worth it. Better to get f/4 zooms (with IS when possible) and fast primes.
Click to expand...

That's what I finally decided as well. I travel for most shoots and have to carry all my cameras and lenses on the plane. With increased restrictions of 7Kg max carry on the extra .75kg will make a difference. With high ISO performance getting so good the extra stop vs size and weight just doesn't make a difference anymore. The original Canon 70-200 2.8 was released in 1995 using film. Those days are over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top