Canon 70-200mm F/4L vs 70-200mm f/2.8L

With the price difference, are you paying for a sharper and better quality
piece of glass or just an extra f/stop?

Thanks,
Dave

 

Both lenses are of extreme high quality, with the edge going to the 2.8 in
image quality... but only just! So I guess there is slighty better glass in
the 2.8. (2.8 is also a bit brighter)

The f4 is a very good lens and provides excellent value for money, but is
not available with an IS option :-(

 

The other advantage of 2.8 is that it gives some breathing room with
extenders....

f2.8 + 1.4x = f4
f2.8 + 2x = f5.6

f4 + 1.4x = f5.6
f4 + 2x = f8 ....this is now starting to get a bit dark and AF may suffer
in some lighting situations.

 

Dave, I've just gone from the f4 to the f2.8 IS version. Here's some bullet
point thoughts:

- the f4 version is lighter and cheaper
- everything else is better about the 2.8 IS

Oh, I suppose you'd like some details...

- despite being a lot heavier, the 2.8 doesn't *feel* that much heavier.
It's the same weight as the sigma 100-300 f4 I have but, because it's not as
long or large circumference, it doesn't feel that much
- neither are stealth lenses - both are white and (relatively) large
- you get a tripod mount with the 2.8, none with the f4 (but it is lighter
so is a bit less necessary)
- IS _works_
- I got shots at f2.8, ISO1600, 1/20th, IS on, that have scaled well to A3
prints
- the f4 version rocks for outside shots; anything else the 2.8 IS is the
one
- I think the 2.8 is slightly sharper, but there's (probably) nothing in it
- f2.8 AF is as good or better than the f4 (on my 350D) I would expect it to
really move on the 20D or any 1 series with the more accurate center focus
point
- bokeh on the 2.8 is really nice; f4 version is very good but f2.8 is just
nicer
- surprisingly, I didn't find the IS took much battery power. I took 933
shots on a *single* battery, about 700 of which were with the f2.8 with IS
always on. Oh, the battery hadn't given up at that stage either; I just
decided to take it out and charge it anyway!
- the price of the f2.8 IS is horrible. The results are fantastic. Damn.

Hope that helps,
Rob

 

G'day Dave

My son has the f2.8 and I bought the f4.....reason being that I found
the 2.8 was too heavy due to an illness which renders me with weak
joints (wrists in this case). We have been at the same speedway (night)
meeting and he can get better photos later in the night than I can due
to the extra stop, but then I swap to a 50mm 1.8 and get a different
perspective.

The tripod collar and IS would be nice, there is not a noticeable
increase in power consumption between the two lenses....eg, at the end
of a night's shooting (approx 900 shots) the batteries in my battery
grip have approx 1/4 left in each battery. I had never used the battery
grip on my D30, it came with the body but I had left it in the box, but
found it gave better balance with the f4. Bought another two batteries
and after two night's shooting (1845 over two nights last January) there
was still power in the 4 batteries.

Had you thought about hiring a lens to test? I think (and could be
wrong) that Baltronics in Sydney hire them but I can't help with costs,
sorry. Not sure where you are located?

 

i have heard that the f4 is generally regarded as being very slightly
sharper than the f2.8 but all three (f4, f2.8 and f2.8 IS) lenses are
still superb.

IMO, if you're going to get a 2.8 version, it makes sense to get the IS
as the non-is version is still heavy. the f4 is much lighter.

i had an f4 version (just sold it today actually!) and loved it.
however when i replace it i'll probably go for the IS version simply to
get the IS which would help for event shooting. nothing wrong with the
f4 though and i might have to get it as well for use in a water
housing! it has a clear advantage when you have to swim around with it

 

Thanks for the informative replies evreryone. After reading your replies and
reading many reviews I have decided to get the 2.8 version.

Thanks again
Dave