70-200 f2.8L IS or 70-200 f4L IS , which IQ better?

[mike bustad]

The result was...i got extremely SHARP @ F4 @ 200mm and i got SOFT +
Purple fringing @ F4 @ 70mm ,both shoot in RAW @ MFD.

I think at MFD it may exhibit some softness - But how often does one
shots at MFD with this lens (f/4 MFD @200mm I have no problems. I
never tried the wide end)?

Could you post some raw or 100% crop samples?

Cheers,
-Mike.

--I have shot mine wide open while shooting a BB game on cloudy days and a little USM they are very good. If I didn't have the 2.8 I would have not gotten the shots a 4 can not d 2.8

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

 

[CNY_AP]

Maybe you should get the 70-200 F4 and with the savings get the 85mm F1.8 for low light situations.

 

[LeMoNsZ]

Maybe you should get the 70-200 F4 and with the savings get the 85mm
F1.8 for low light situations.

--

I alr owned both of them .^^

 

[bronxbombers]

Im hesitating between this 2 lenses.
The reasons that im attracted by .....

= F2.8L IS =
1)wider aperture
2)nicer bokeh

= F4L IS =
1)3rd generation IS
2)1/2 of 2.8L IS weight and smaller size.

yup

Now im wondering the IQ by both of the lens.
some threads say when wide open @ f2.8 , it will SOFT...
If thats true that 2.8L IS only wil get tack sharp on f4 above,
so what for im going for f2.8L IS ?

maybe because you need f/2.8??

try shooting basketball indoors on anything less than a FF with an f/4 lens for one.

again you said youself already, maybe you need more background blur and maybe, considering shooting conditions for indoor and night sports you can't always get every last pixel out of a lens anyway so you might even see any difference even pixel-peeping in terms of raw IQ but motion blur or a stop more noise can be easy to spot.

that matters a lot more than a little bit of sharpness?

From what i had saw from photography-on-the.net on their
Lens Sample Photo Archive ,i found that the overall images
of F4L is sharper than the f2.8L .

it is a little bit
my f/4 IS at 200mm at f/4 is as sharp as my 2.8 non-IS at f/5.

So..anyone experienced before with both of these lenses?
Please share ur experience and opinion.
Thanks !

if you need f/2.8 get f/2.8, if you don't need IS don't get the IS version otherwise get the f/4, tiny bit sharper and much more portable.

the f/4's are a LOT smaller and much more portable for all sorts of general usage, you can even stick them in a cargo pants pocket say if you are runing around visiting SF all day long or something, 2.8 is much too large.

but again try doing night sports or indoor sports or getting ultimate low DOF from it.

only you know what aspects matter the most.

i had been doing lots of night and indoor sports an duisng APS-C body so i had a 70-200 2.8 non-IS for that and a 70-300 IS for portability now that i'm not doing indoor sports much and moved to FF, I sold my 70-300 IS and am about to sell my 2.8 non-IS and replace those with the f/4 IS (I already have a 1.4x TC to give me 280mm out of it for when the 300 2.8 IS is too much of a pain to bring, which is most of the time other than serious sports/wildlife shooting).

 

[Dennis112229]

Yes, the 70-200 f4L IS is very sharp wide open at f4. In fact, it gives the 300 f2.8L IS a real run for it's money. I'm a sucker for 2.8 lens, shallow depth of field, but the f4 is a real performer. The IS on this lens works much better than any of my IS lens to date. Sorry I don't have the 2.8 in either version, but am very happy with the f4.

Dennis

 

[David Zeno]

Gee, just when you are sold on the f2.8 IS, you read this thread

I have the f4 non IS version, and now think I may just keep it, although it doesn't have IS, the lens is tack sharp.

 

[mad1den]

I have the 2.8 L and it is an awesome zoom. I just ordered the 4L IS and it will be interesting to compare the two lenses. I usually shoot portraits at 4.0 or higher.