Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 4L vs. 700-200 2.8 non-IS

Go to last post
S

Santiago Chuck

Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
 
It's hard to beat that nice narrow DOF and good bokeh of the 2.8 version when shooting sports. When the game runs long and the light starts to wain you'll really appreciate the extra light.

The 2.8 version will do everything the 4.0 version will do but the reverse will not apply.

And lastly... if you get the 4.0 version you will at some point say "I wish I would have gotten the 2.8". You will never say "I wish I would have gotten the 4.0". heh heh
Santiago Chuck said:
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't
found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford
the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H
seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's
discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for
which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I
want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos
from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get
the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the
extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I
should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS
for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
Click to expand...
 
john,

i agree that the bokeh is nicer on the f2.8 version but, for sports, i think the DOF is too narrow except for golf and baseball where players can be isolated. for soccer, football, or basketball, i'd prefer f4 to f5.6 if i have enough light.
Member said:
And lastly... if you get the 4.0 version you will at some point say
"I wish I would have gotten the 2.8".
Click to expand...
true for me at least. i bought the f/4L first but decided to add a f/2.8 for the low-light ability. now, i have the f/4L and a canon 80-200 f/2.8L.
Member said:
You will never say "I wish I would have gotten the 4.0". heh heh
Click to expand...
actually, some people have. they either found they never shot below f4 or found the f2.8 version way too heavy to carry around all day or to handhold.

--
NKH
 
another alternative is to buy a used canon 80-200 f/2.8L for about $600. you save $500-600, get the f2.8 max aperture and end up with a sharp lens with great colors, contrast and bokeh.
Santiago Chuck said:
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't
found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford
the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H
seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's
discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for
which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I
want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos
from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get
the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the
extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I
should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS
for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
Click to expand...
--
NKH
 
I owned F4 (used w/ 10D) for about a year and just sold on e-bay and purchased F2.8. Why? I take a LOT of soccer, track and cross-country photos. I also live in Pacific Northwest, where days can be short and often cloudy. With soccer, I like to put 1.4x converter on. The F4 lens with 1.4x turns into F5.6, which very often means shooting at 1600 iso on dark days or early evening to get adequate shutter speed. Although not bad, noise is often an issue at 1600...so, choice for me was clear, get as much lens as I could afford and go with the F2.8. F4 is a very nice, lightweight lens. If you live in a "sunnier" area than Seattle (or similar) and shoot mainly outdoors, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the F4. By the way, I sold mine for about $30 less than I paid for it (new), so don't be afraid to try the F4, see if it works for you, and if it doesn't sell it on e-bay and get the F2.8 later...

Good luck,
R. Jones
Santiago Chuck said:
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't
found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford
the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H
seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's
discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for
which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I
want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos
from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get
the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the
extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I
should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS
for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
Click to expand...
--
RJones
 
I just remembered what else I was going to say...since you mentioned 28-135, I had that one as well and is also a very nice lens. The two you mentioned 70-200 F4 and 28-135 make a nice combo.
rdjonz said:
Good luck,
R. Jones
Santiago Chuck said:
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't
found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford
the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H
seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's
discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for
which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I
want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos
from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get
the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the
extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I
should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS
for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
Click to expand...
--
RJones
Click to expand...
--
RJones
 
Thanks all for the helpful information.

I live in San Diego, which is a little sunnier than Seattle ;) so the 4 may be fast enough for me at this point. However since I shoot mostly triathlons and surfing, the ability to put a 1.4x or a 2x converter on the lens is a nice plus. Not to mention the added DOF bonus from the larger aperture.

I guess in short I still have no idea what I'm gonna get! I also need to buy a new computer since my old one doesn't do so well with PS and large image processing, so I gotta figure out how best to apportion the $$ around.

Anyway you've all given me some good points to consider.

Thanks,
Santiago
rdjonz said:
rdjonz said:
Good luck,
R. Jones
Santiago Chuck said:
I've been searching the forum for information on this but I haven't
found enough stuff yet... hopefully you all can help me out.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 L lenses... can't really afford
the 2.8 IS so I'm trying to decide between the 4 and the 2.8 - B&H
seems to still have the 2.8 although I've heard that's it's
discontinued.

Primary use for the lens will be outdoor sports photography, for
which the 4 would certainly suffice. My main concern is that if I
want to later go with a 2x converter (for better surfing photos
from the beach) I'll lose AF and speed in the lens.

I should be able to sell an old body and a lens to basically get
the 4 for "free" so I'm wondering if the added $600 is worth the
extra stop of the 2.8. Are there any other major differences I
should be aware of or consider?

Or should I go for the 4 and put the extra $600 towards a 28-135 IS
for walking around?

Thanks in advance for your help.

-Santiago
Click to expand...
--
RJones
Click to expand...
--
RJones
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top