squeeze327491
Well-known member
which lens to you use most often? Or is the 70-200 f4L IS redundant after owning the 70-200 f2.8L IS II? Thank you.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
For 70-200 f4L IS and 70-200 f2.8L IS II owners,
- Thread starter squeeze327491
- Start date
Own both. 2.8IS II by far. however, the f4 IS is fantastic for traveling and any other time you want something light.
--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos
--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos
BRUCEK56
Leading Member
Hi,
That is actually an excellent question. I had the original 70-200 2.8 IS and sold it to buy the f4 IS version because it was so much smaller and lighter and super sharp at f4 . I was never really happy with the 2.8 at 2.8....too soft.
I found myself needing 2.8 more and more for the type of work I was doing.....theatre plays, dance recitals, talent shows etc.... When the version ll of the 2.8 lens came out I bought and assumed I would sell the f4 version.
I was actually shocked to find out the 2.8 lens was sharper at 2.8 than the f4 lens was at f4. I simply never expected the 2.8 lens to be THAT good!
Anyway to answer your question I decided to not sell the f4 lens because for anything other than the absolute need for 2.8 I find the light weight, ease of use and versatility of the f4 version much more appealing. I actually do use it more than the 2.8 lens for all my photo work that is not very low light.
Make no mistake though the 2.8 I will never sell and it is invaluable and required for photo venues where f4 simply won't cut it.
I guess you might say having both lenses I have the best of both worlds!
--
BRUCEK56
That is actually an excellent question. I had the original 70-200 2.8 IS and sold it to buy the f4 IS version because it was so much smaller and lighter and super sharp at f4 . I was never really happy with the 2.8 at 2.8....too soft.
I found myself needing 2.8 more and more for the type of work I was doing.....theatre plays, dance recitals, talent shows etc.... When the version ll of the 2.8 lens came out I bought and assumed I would sell the f4 version.
I was actually shocked to find out the 2.8 lens was sharper at 2.8 than the f4 lens was at f4. I simply never expected the 2.8 lens to be THAT good!
Anyway to answer your question I decided to not sell the f4 lens because for anything other than the absolute need for 2.8 I find the light weight, ease of use and versatility of the f4 version much more appealing. I actually do use it more than the 2.8 lens for all my photo work that is not very low light.
Make no mistake though the 2.8 I will never sell and it is invaluable and required for photo venues where f4 simply won't cut it.
I guess you might say having both lenses I have the best of both worlds!
--
BRUCEK56
squeeze327491
Well-known member
Thank you both for your comments. I really like my 70-200 f4L IS too but the 70-200 f2.8L IS II is calling me 
24Peter
Veteran Member
If you're in the US, it's easy to rent one for a week. I did and found the 2.8 II to be one of the best lenses I've ever used (and I've used a lot of 'em.) But in the end, for the price + my kind of shooting, I decided to stick with my F4 IS.Thank you both for your comments. I really like my 70-200 f4L IS too but the 70-200 f2.8L IS II is calling me
--
View my photo galleries here: http://imageevent.com/24peter
Model Mayhem: http://www.modelmayhem.com/93181
squeeze327491
Well-known member
Thank you. That is a great idea but in my city, there is no place that rent out lenses 
Liberty555
Forum Enthusiast
I too used to think I'd never need more than the f4, but the f2.8 is incredible.
I shot this pic with a 2x extender through thick dirty glass at the zoo and to me its still sharp as a tack.
I shot this pic with a 2x extender through thick dirty glass at the zoo and to me its still sharp as a tack.
squeeze327491
Well-known member
that's why I don't like looking at pictures taken with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. It makes me want to spend money which is better of saved
dswtan
Well-known member
+1, except, every time I think I should take the f4, I say "what if I miss the shot and regret not taking the f2.8", so I just suck up the weight and take the f2.8 anyway.
So the f4 is gathering dust -- though TBH, I was never really that impressed with it. (Both that and my 17-55 experience seem to be at odds with everyone else, but the f2.8 is fantastic for sure.)
squeeze327491
Well-known member
I also have the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I love them both (17-55 and 70-200 f4 IS) although the 70-200 seems to give me better pics
Liberty555
Forum Enthusiast
Forgot to add, I sold the f4LIS because I needed the money to fund the f2.8LISII.
In the perfect world, I'd have kept both, but can live without it (the f4). I don't mind the extra weight myself.
In the perfect world, I'd have kept both, but can live without it (the f4). I don't mind the extra weight myself.
i have both 70-200 f2.8 L non-IS and 70-200 f4.0 L IS and like both very much. the more i looked at the new 70-200 f2.8mk2 the less i get the urge to upgrade for f4.0 IS, simply because i find it hard to see the difference in IQ above the f 4.0. i haven't seen any difference in contrast, sharpness and or IQ in general, in this the confession from people that own both teles 
if i see the need for faster lens in low light, then i'll reach for my much faster "L" primes to do the job better! so, while i can afford to purchase this lens (70-200 f2.8 mk2) if i want to, i have decided to keep my 70-200 f4 IS and move on without any 2nd thought. oh, and in any dimmer light situation, the f2.8 aperture is not going to buy you any bubble gum, you have to reach for much faster glasses then f2.8 or use flash so, please save yourself a lot of change and get the 70-200 f4.0 IS, you won't regret it, i don't!
cheerz.
if i see the need for faster lens in low light, then i'll reach for my much faster "L" primes to do the job better! so, while i can afford to purchase this lens (70-200 f2.8 mk2) if i want to, i have decided to keep my 70-200 f4 IS and move on without any 2nd thought. oh, and in any dimmer light situation, the f2.8 aperture is not going to buy you any bubble gum, you have to reach for much faster glasses then f2.8 or use flash so, please save yourself a lot of change and get the 70-200 f4.0 IS, you won't regret it, i don't!cheerz.
that's why I don't like looking at pictures taken with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. It makes me want to spend money which is better of saved
birdbrain
Senior Member
i'm glad i read your post as i have a 70-200 is f4 on it's way!
it's a canon refurbished, but if it's anything like the 7D i got from canon i don't think i will be disappointed as apart from the shutter count it looked like it had just come out the box new!
all i hope is the current fine weather holds and i can get out and shoot with it when it arrives.
i am currently camped out by the letter box waiting :0
--
Phil
I wondered why the ball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.
it's a canon refurbished, but if it's anything like the 7D i got from canon i don't think i will be disappointed as apart from the shutter count it looked like it had just come out the box new!
all i hope is the current fine weather holds and i can get out and shoot with it when it arrives.
i am currently camped out by the letter box waiting :0
--
Phil
I wondered why the ball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.
I own the 70-200mm f4L IS. I dont own any of the two 2.8 lenses.
i) For travel (light weight) the 70-200mm f4L IS is better. Its tack sharp. Its even sharper stopped down. Not heavy & its a delight to use.
ii) If money is not a concern, u cud consider getting one. Especially for outdoor, 'travel light' purpose photographs.
i) For travel (light weight) the 70-200mm f4L IS is better. Its tack sharp. Its even sharper stopped down. Not heavy & its a delight to use.
ii) If money is not a concern, u cud consider getting one. Especially for outdoor, 'travel light' purpose photographs.
Stilograph
Forum Enthusiast
I first had the f4 IS, sold it and got the 2.8 without IS. Reason for this was over 1500 euro gap between stabilized and non IS version, and the fact that i needed the shutter speed, as i shoot stuff that moves a lot all the time.
So far the IQ has been more or less identical. I like the colors of the 2.8 a little more then the f4 IS. All I really miss is the weight, but you can't have it all. In an ideal world I would love to have both.
However at first there was quite a bit off getting used to actually holding the lens steady by hand. One thing about IS is, is that it really helps the composing.
So far the IQ has been more or less identical. I like the colors of the 2.8 a little more then the f4 IS. All I really miss is the weight, but you can't have it all. In an ideal world I would love to have both.
However at first there was quite a bit off getting used to actually holding the lens steady by hand. One thing about IS is, is that it really helps the composing.
birdbrain
Senior Member
My 500 mm is f4 and I don't find that limiting for the kind of shots I take so the 70-200 will be OK for me.
I was after something that was reasonably light the f2.8 is quite heavy. Having a look at the various Flickr sites devoted to the lens I don't think I will miss it not being 2.8.
--
Phil
I wondered why the ball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.
Hank3152
Forum Pro
I've had both f/2.8IS II and the f/4IS for over a year. The IQ is relatively identical with great colors and contrast but sold the 2.8 II since I rarely absolutely needed it wide open......if I did need a faster lens usually f/2.8 wasn't enough anyway, so I'd bring out my 135f/2......
.......besides, the weight will wear you out after hand holding it for several hrs..........unless you feel like lugging a tripod or monopod around.
--
Regards,
Hank
Liberty555
Forum Enthusiast
Interesting. So, do you still use the 2x TC? The 1.4 on the f4L give you 280mm and the 2X on the 135 gives you... 270, albeit a stop faster.
It won't work on the f4L with bodies lesser than the 1 series and if you have a 1 series body, the weight of the lens is not such a big deal.
Personnally I find the weight of the lens to be a minor issue - I have a great backpack for the hike and a tripod/monopod at the shoot.
Horses for courses I suppose.
It won't work on the f4L with bodies lesser than the 1 series and if you have a 1 series body, the weight of the lens is not such a big deal.
Personnally I find the weight of the lens to be a minor issue - I have a great backpack for the hike and a tripod/monopod at the shoot.
Horses for courses I suppose.
Hank3152
Forum Pro
No, ......when I sold the 2.8 II I also sold the 2xIII as a combo, and kept the 1.4xII for the f/4IS. The cash from the sale provided the 135f/2L and almost $2000 back in my pocket.
The 2.8 II was shared between a 1DmkIII and a gripped 5D.....the f/4IS was usually on a bare 7D
I didn't mind carrying it either, whether using a backpack or hanging at my side by a shoulder strap .............the issue was with constant handholding for a couple of hours for BIF or an 8hr drag race........and since I usually shot between f/5.6 and f/8, the f/4IS was much easier to handle.
--
Regards,
Hank
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum