As good as it gets?

Extremely sharp and detailed results

Corner sharpness not too different from centre

Very little light fall off in the corners

Completely usable at f/4

Aberrations and distortion so little as to be no problem

Attractive Bokeh at long focal lengths and wide apertures

Super fast and accurate AF

Internal focussing - no extension, no rotating front element

Beautiful zoom ring (90 degrees of turn, light enough to work with one gentle finger, but no zoom creep

Does not extend on zooming

Results with 1.4x extender as good (for all practical purposes) as with the bare lens [Have not yet tried the 2x]

USM - so can manually focus without messing around with switches and buttons to disable AF

Extremely effective Image Stabilisation

Is not prone to flare

Very tough construction

Sealed against dust and moisture

Considering what you are getting, it is not too big and not so heavy

I never knew lenses could be this good. It is close to perfect ... or a least, as good as it can get.

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

Thanks for reminding me of a favorite movie.

Dave wrote:

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

For many, the f/4 aperture is all they will ever need and the lighter weight and lower price are big pluses. As a pro, however, the f/2.8 aperture on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is absolutely necessary. I cannot count the number of times I've shot speakers at podiums, sporting events, portraits, architectural details, etc. at f/2.8.

Dave wrote:

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

Thanks for reminding me of a favorite movie.

Moot question for me. I opt to own and keep both lenses.

Ktrphoto wrote:

Dave wrote:

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

The wider aperture is unnecessary for me, and now that the latest cameras shoot clean images at ISO 6400+I don't see why anybody needs f/2.8 to freeze subject motion.

I was with you until you made your wording include others as in..."I don't see why anybody needs..."

You and I may not need it, but others may need or want this....in those cases the f/2.8 version is there and is the best choice.

So for me the question was "Is slightly better Bokeh wide-open worth double the price and twice the weight"

And the answer is No.

Not that the extra weight would have bothered me much. I already lug a pair of Canon 1-series DSLRs around with me, so I am used to carrying weighty equipment.

I read that the f/2.8 version gives slightly sharper results, but I cannot see the difference.

For a full time sports photographer the slightly better AF in low light and the brighter viewfinder image might be enough to justify the extra weight and price. I'd also expect the f/2.8 version to work better with the 2x Teleconverter.

HarryLally wrote:The main/ only weakness with both lenses is the rather long MFD, which makes close portraits difficult at 70mm or so.

What's Long MFD? Is it Minimum Focus Distance? 
I am considering to use 70-200 for Infrared conversion and wondering if 70-200mm f4L IS will be a good choice.

Ktrphoto wrote:

Dave wrote:

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

The wider aperture is unnecessary for me, and now that the latest cameras shoot clean images at ISO 6400+I don't see why anybody needs f/2.8 to freeze subject motion.

So for me the question was "Is slightly better Bokeh wide-open worth double the price and twice the weight"

Bokeh is the same - exactly the same in fact (I tested this). You get more blur with the faster lens @f/2.8 which the slower lens cannot match - but that's something else.

For bokeh the two lenses are (as always) best wide open. So bokeh @f/4.0 is somewhat better on the f/4.0 lens than the f/2.8 lens - because its stopped down and you can see the adverse effect of the aperture blades on the bokeh.

After f/4.0 its a tie between the two.

Ktrphoto wrote:

Extremely sharp and detailed results

Its a world class zoom for sure. On the 5DII and 5DIII I could never see the difference to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II. I only got the faster lens because I needed the extra stop.

However, I did notice that DXO ranks its resolving ability somewhat lower on the 5DSR compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II.

So maybe it takes a slight hit at very high MPIX. However, since I only have one of them now I have no way of confirming this myself.

HarryLally wrote:

Yes. From memory, it's about 12ft/ 4m. So not great for close portraits at 70mm or so FL. Otherwise, it's a wonderful lens...also not too big or heavy. Excellent resolution/ sharpness, contrast and colour.

The MFD is 4ft (1.2 m) - quite short IMHO.

dherzstein wrote:

HarryLally wrote:

Yes. From memory, it's about 12ft/ 4m. So not great for close portraits at 70mm or so FL. Otherwise, it's a wonderful lens...also not too big or heavy. Excellent resolution/ sharpness, contrast and colour.

The MFD is 4ft (1.2 m) - quite short IMHO.

Well, when you're accustomed to the nimbleness of 55-250 STM, which has an MFD of 0.85m and magnification of 0.29x, 70-200F4LIS's 1.2m MFD /0.21x magnification feels positively Jurassic. One of the few complaints I have about the lens.

Ktrphoto wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

Ktrphoto wrote:

Dave wrote:

Would you consider the added weight and expense of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM unnecessary?

The wider aperture is unnecessary for me, and now that the latest cameras shoot clean images at ISO 6400+I don't see why anybody needs f/2.8 to freeze subject motion.

I was with you until you made your wording include others as in..."I don't see why anybody needs..."

You and I may not need it, but others may need or want this....in those cases the f/2.8 version is there and is the best choice.

I did not deny that someone else might have a good reason for wanting an f/2.8 version. I merely said that I cannot see why!!

Wow, I guess Roger's comment must have been festering over the past six months...:-D