70 - 200 L series which one?

[kieran03]

g'day,

looking at purchasing in the near future the L series 70-200mm
at the moment i'm trying to decide between the f2.8 L & the f4 L.

biggest differences being price and aperture, has anyone out there used either or one that they'd recommend?

[andylo]

There are currently a few 70-200L models, I think you need to be a little specific. i.e. are you comparing both f/4 f/2.8 version with IS, or the version without?

I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II version, and have used the f/4 IS version fair bit.

The biggest difference to me is really not the price nor the aperture. It is the actual size and the weight.

With the f4 IS version, I am more mobile. I move a little faster and much, less weight on my hand.

With the f2.8 II version I got, it's quite a lot heavier, a little longer. I cannot do "pop-shot" as quick as the f4.

I like to have someone correct me if I am wrong this, but I feel the f4 IS version seems focus a little quicker.

Both have 4 stops IS. Both can delivery almost prime like sharpness if used correctly, with the f2.8 II version has a slight edge on both sharpness and color rendering ONLY if you are pixel peeping.

The reason I selected f/2.8 II version only because I like the look of envy from my peers :D I am quite happy to get the f4 IS version and use it and I wouldn't complaint about it.

[Speedway]

It all depends on what you want the lens for, if you want low light performance you will need the F2.8. I just got the F2.8 and 2Xiii extender which is another reason for the 2.8 choice.
Keith.

[bigfut]

Just to add another perspective, I have the 70-200 f/4 without IS. I mainly shoot sports with the lens, so the IS was of no benefit to me, and would have added to the weight. I used the lens hand held the other week for 3-4 hours straight, and didn't have any complaints. I have used the f/2.8 IS and wouldn't have had a hope of using it in that way, for that long.

As mentioned above, really depends on what you plan to use the lens for.

[Arg]

I wouldn't get the 2.8 unless you absolutely positively [I]know[I] that f4 is not going to work for you.

[Mary Anne]

I have the f/4 with IS its nice and light I often use the EF 1.4x11 Extender with it making the focal length 280mm to shoot birds.
Trying them both out in Stores beforehand I found the f/2.8 to heavy for me..
With the f/4 I can hand hold this lens and extender with no problems. Its lighter than some of my Macro gear :D

[William]

My son Joel and I have looked at getting the 70-200 f4 non IS with extender, We dont take many low light shots that would warrant IS or 2.8 , Mainly for use at high shutter speeds in good light , If not I'll up the ISO to get the speed in dull light , And it's a lot cheaper ;)

[kieran03]

awesome cheers for all the feed back...
i will mainly be shooting sports with it (cycling in particular) and anything else i can think of...so sometimes i could be indoors at the velodrome or outdoors in the sunny or very overcast cloudy days...

[Tony B]

awesome cheers for all the feed back...
i will mainly be shooting sports with it (cycling in particular) and anything else i can think of...so sometimes i could be indoors at the velodrome or outdoors in the sunny or very overcast cloudy days...

Over time I have had all of the 70-200s. The best & also the most expensive is the vII 2.8. Weight & price are probably the 2 most significant factors in not purchasing this lens. It is sharp with both 1.4 (Canon vII) & 2x (Kenko Pro 300 DG). My take on IS & 2.8 with this lens is that it is better to have it & not need it (turn it off) than need it & not have it.

[GoldZilla]

My take on IS & 2.8 with this lens is that it is better to have it & not need it (turn it off) than need it & not have it.

I've used this philosophy a fair bit in life in general, and this swayed me into buying a non-IS f/2.8L. I do wish I had done a little more research and spent a bit more for the IS version, but it has served me well so far regardless. It is a heavy lens though, no doubt!

Last year I managed to capture this shot at the World Time Attack Challenge at Eastern Creek - it's been cleaned up a fair bit for noise because it was after dark with minimal lighting on-site:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6026/6016723048_f092f37316_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldzilla/6016723048/)
IMG_4162-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldzilla/6016723048/) by GoldZilla (http://www.flickr.com/people/goldzilla/), on Flickr

[William W]

looking at purchasing in the near future the L series 70-200mm
at the moment i'm trying to decide between the f2.8 L & the f4 L. biggest differences being price and aperture, has anyone out there used either or one that they'd recommend?
i will mainly be shooting sports with it (cycling in particular) and anything else i can think of...so sometimes i could be indoors at the velodrome or outdoors in the sunny or very overcast cloudy days...

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM would be the best choice.

Because: it is F/2.8 and the maximum aperture of a lens will eventually define whether a speed shot in low light is either possible or impossible; also IS because there will be the facility to using Panning IS; also because of the two F/2.8 IS models, the MkII is superior in almost every respect.

That said for the sole purpose of cycling (or any other action sport) and if you can do without Panning IS, the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM is the better choice of the other two F/2.8L lenses, because: it is sharper wide open and, thus also shaper with either MkII EF tele-extender attached, (albeit that the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM might not now be available from any stockist, as a new purchase).

WW

[mikew09]

Hmmm - In my experience I find that you start out with a purpose for a lens and then at some time find you start using it for other photos. I bought a 10-20mm for landscape but know find I use it quite a bit for portrait. I purchased a 70-200 F4 non-IS about 3 yrs ago and it suited me perfectly for about 12 months and then as my photography styles broadens I have found the f4 quite restrictive at times. Shooting horse comps in an area can be a challenge lighting wise when there is a lot of movement and I hate ISO over 400 on the 50D when there are light and dark areas in the frame. When I tried the 2.8 I was surprised how much more light it let in and have pined for one ever since.
The non IS is a superb lens and not that much more expensive. Need to keep in mind the need for a good shutter speed as you don't have the IS to assist with camera shake but I dont find non-IS an issue myself. My replacement will be the version II 70-200 2.8 but not until a little more pocket money is made from photo sales from events this yr :-( .

I would suggest consider carefully between the 2.8 & f4 regardless of which model.

[Roosta]

I'm with William W, I own the 70-200 F2.8 L NON IS and shoot mainly rugby union with it, I need to use it on a monopole as it is heavy, but managable. (Using a Black Rapid Sports strap) you can use it hand held but after a while it will get to you. The F4 is a nice lens, but if shooting in the drome under lower aftificial light, I feel the F2.8 will clearly win. The extra stop is a bonus when using a TC, I use a Kenko 1.4 x on my lens to get EFOV of 280mm and it drops to F4 but still very user friendly under lower ambient light and wide open shooting. If you need to use speeds slower than the shutter lenght, then the IS would be a big consideraton, and the F2.8 would be the clear winner here.

[KeeFy]

If you're shooting cycling, have you considered the 300mm f4L? Awesome sports lens and plenty of reach.

But yeah... if you want versatility the 70-200 f2.8 IS II or a much cheaper Non IS.

[Speedway]

Tried the 70-200 F2.8L is ii out on Saturday night at Renmark Go Karts and was very pleased with the results, see here (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?101552-First-Low-Light-Go-Kart-Shots-with-the-70-200&p=996493#post996493).
Keith.

[Brian500au]

I own the 70-200 f2.8 IS VII after upgrading from the VI earlier this year. I mostly use it for portrait work outside in good light. I still stop it down to 2.8 to control DOF. It is noticeable sharper than the first version to the point you could use it instead of primes in this range (if you never needed more than 2.8). I do find it slower focus than the first version, and it does have trouble in lower light situations (I mean very low light) - but then again my primes had no trouble locking focus.

If you are just using it for sport in good light then f4 is all you will need - in fact you would probably stop it down anyway to give you a wider DOF on a moving object. Weight is a serious consideration too - it is not a lens I carry around at any time - I am very stationary when I use this lens.

[Dwarak]

I currently own the 100mm L f2.8 and use it for portraiture as well as macro hand held and find the IS very useful I am planning to buy the 70 - 200mm F2.8 IS L ii for portraiture in low light as well I am sure the IS will be better than the 100mm IS just going by the fact that it is a newer lens I tried this lens at Teds the other day veen at 1/10 shutter I can get resonably sharp shots wide open and the quality it delivers is great as well.....

[Max]

just to throw my two cents in, I would pick the 70-200 2.8 over the 70-200 f4, if you go go for the f4 version you might consider the 70-300L for the extra range.
Excellent IS, very fast focus speed, only one stop difference its f5 up to around 230. Its a very compact portable package.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Haven't tried the F4 version but the F2.8 II with IS version is fantastic in terms of image quality and I also use it with 2X extender for very long landscape shots.
If you're going to use it with an 2xextender , remember that your largest aperture is going to be F8 which might limit you significant in anything but bright daylight on a camera with average iso performance.

In terms of the weight - yes it's heavy but Marianne and I both manage to use it for whole day wedding shoots with some fatigue by the time reception comes around. It suspect it also depends on how you hold it - we hold with shutter button down in our right hand to relieve some of the weight from the left arm - I suspect you might run into some more fatigue issues if you're holding it shutter button up with all weight in your left hand? <speculation only!>

[William W]

Unsure what lens to which we are referring, or if it is a typo.
But, for clarity:

With a x2 extender an F/2.8 lens will have a Max Aperture of F/5.6
With a x2 extender an F/4 lens will have a Max Aperture of F/8.

WW

[LJG]

Even though I am like many and crave low light performance I did the opposite to what most do. I wanted the new f2.8 IS II - until I saw how big and heavy it was. I wanted it mainly for travel, so size and weight was more a consideration than aperture and price. In the end I opted for the f4 IS version. It has lighting fast and deadly accurate auto focus on my 5D2. It is light enough that I can lug it around on my 5D2 with grip and Black Rapid strap without fatigue issues. The IQ is faultless and it works well with my 1.4 teleconverter - it actually reads f5 instead of f4 when it is wide open, not f5.6 like you would expect. I have other lenses to use if I need a wider aperture with a shallower depth of field so it fits my needs well. But that is not to say it will fit your needs. My suggestion is to go into a store and actually try both the f2.8 and f4 versions out, that will give you a much better idea on which way to jump.

[andylo]

I suspect he means smallest aperture possible to retains AF?


Unsure what lens to which we are referring, or if it is a typo.
But, for clarity:

With a x2 extender an F/2.8 lens will have a Max Aperture of F/5.6
With a x2 extender an F/4 lens will have a Max Aperture of F/8.

WW

[William W]

I suspect he means smallest aperture possible to retains AF?


I believe that AF is lost at Max. Apertures smaller than F/5.6, on all but EOS 1 Series Cameras.

So, that's one reason why I posted the clarification: if you have an F/4 zoom and plonk an x2 EF Teleconverter on it, you will lose AF (unless you have a 1 Series camera).

WW

[lincoln]

I sold my f4 to buy the f2.8 IS.
I shoot outdoor sports with it at f8 - f11 so max. aperture is not a concern.
The f2.8 is a large heavy lens, I am reasonably robust but do find the weight tiring at times.
I would suggest that the f4 version will serve you well in most situations barring poorly lit velodromes.

[peterking]

I pondered this question for several months before I bought my 2.8. I deliberately went away from the IS as doing sports you have to turn it off. So far I have only found two occasions when I wished I'd gone for it but as the budget didn't go there I'm happy with what I've got.
I can not stress enough, Do not go the F4 as if you add 1.4 extender as I have you loose one stop and two for the 2X. On my 7D autofocus works all the time.
The weight has not often posed a problem and I'm often at it for min 3 hours.
If you want then PM me and I'd be happy to meet up with you and let you play with my 2.8 and 1.4extender.

[Dittography]

I've just been through the same decision process and was lucky enough to be loaned the F2.8 MkII. All reviews of the MkII were very positive and my loan lens helped confirm that for me. In the end I decided the weight wouldn't be too much of an issue for my intended use. With regards to F2.8 vs F4 and IS or non IS, I decided to go with the philosophy, " better to be looking at it than for it..."
Hopefully once it arrives and I get some real time use with it, my decision proves to be the right one. Either way I'm excited about it's arrival...