Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs f/2.8 IS II for VIDEO

BrunoLandMedia wrote:

Hello. I really didn't think this was going to be an issue for me but while doing some other research and setting up my "mid range zoom lens" comparison (24-70 f/4 vs 24-105 f/4 mkII) I ran across a post about the f/4 being pretty great for video and not needing the f/2.8 on the 70-200. Just one post though.....

Quick time sensitive background. I JUST bought a 2.8 IS II from a used site for a great deal and thought I was done and done for life. I have my "dream lens" and now I can just check that off my list. But then after reading this post about the f/4 being good for video and then again listing 2 major benefits of price and weight (both half basically), It got me thinking again. And because I just got this lens, I need to make a decision on whether to keep it or not by next Wednesday (March 14th) for return purposes. It looks like I have the option to get an f/4 used for a pretty good deal to test against, but I just want to make sure I'm not being a total idiot.

I searched and searched yesterday and again today for articles, message boards or video's details the VIDEO performance difference between the 2 lenses especially in low light like a concert or theatre but there is really nothing out there. It's all for photos, understandably of course.

I just want to know if there are any good first hand comparisons between the 2 for video.

Part of me wants to just forget I read anything, keep the lens, know that I have a great lens for video, photo, let my toddler get older (and his sister is being born in July) and just grow into the lens, even if I'm not using it as much for Photos now, I will be when they are doing sports, activities etc.. The other part of me just got to thinking about saving $700-800 and making some other hard decisions very easy. Let the f/4 do fine for video (24fps at 50 shutter speed 99% of the time) and I can get by with photos for half the price and weight.

Side question/note. I currently shoot on 80d's (2 of them) and will most likely making the move on one of them to upgrade to 6dmkii (do I'd have both). Would that change the situation "low light wise" by video on the 6dmkii?

I don't want to miss out on the deal I got on the f/2.8 by second guessing, but I also don't want to waste some money if I can just return it and get the f/4. I also get nervous about putting too much on the credit card just for comparison sake.

Any advice would be killer.

Cheers, Chris

Chris.

I only do stills, not video.     However....

Years back I wanted to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Then Canon introduced the smaller lighter f/4 L IS. Less expensive, improved color and sharpness compared to the f/2.8 Version 1. Since the f/4 L IS was so good and rumors of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the horizon, I bought the f/4 L IS in 2009. Loved it, used it a ton with great results.

Then the announcement of the f/2.8 L IS hit the streets several months later. I could sell the f/4 L IS and apply. A few months later in January, 2011, I bought the f/2.8 L IS Mark II outright. Used it, loved it, no complaints what so ever. I could just put up the f/4 L IS and unload it.......

After turning 50 and coming back from numerous trips to Europe and seeing how my newer 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/4 L IS have been performing Hand Held in the Basilica's where tripods are prohibited, I have now been leaving the wonderful f/2.8 L IS at home in favor of its smaller, lighter equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS. Why lug around the additional weight?

Last week for Event work, I grabbed the f/2.8.

Sooooo.... I would keep the f/2.8 L IS Mark II. In the future you may find for other work having a smaller rig with same focal range may be an added benefit.

They are both really great lenses to have and utilize.