EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM or EF 70-200mm f4L IS
- Thread starter akszaksz
- Start date
take a chill pill people, before we have to step in.
Irvine
Senior Member
Most lenses generally perform better after stopping down and weaker when wide open fyi if IQ is one the issues here.
Back to the topic:
Comparing the 70-200 f/2.8 L USM and the 70-200 f/4 L IS is like comparing apples with oranges. The main question in considering both lenses is pretty fundamental, and that is: Do you need the wider aperture at f/2.8 for that 1 stop extra shutter speed in low light? If this basic need doesn't even come across your mind, then the choice is pretty clear already if you need a telephoto zoom up to 200mm. For portraits (if you really need zooms for portraits, although I generally prefer primes), even the cheap zoom 55-250mm is good enough but only on APS-C cameras. For FF, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is also good enough as demonstrated by some of the members here.
70-200 f/2.8 L USM may perform better than 70-200 f/4 L IS at f/4 (I don't really know since I'm a Nikon shooter) but this factor should not even affect your decision that much when considering these 2 lenses. If you just want to have the sharpest and the best lens, then you will never be happy, since every lens has its own flaws.
Last edited:
Turbonetics
Senior Member
I keep track of this thread and finds it damn funny that things kept repeating.
Lucky for me,I got the best among the 5 lenses to keep me worry free and til now i have no regrets..the price may be steeper,but it is definitely worth every cents of it...wahaha
Comparing this two lenses is like choosing between IS or F2.8..image stability is something which u can control and doesn't mean with IS u are 100% shake proof..whilst F2.8 will never be able to achieve with a F4 lens and it's something beyond control..wahaha
Lucky for me,I got the best among the 5 lenses to keep me worry free and til now i have no regrets..the price may be steeper,but it is definitely worth every cents of it...wahaha
Comparing this two lenses is like choosing between IS or F2.8..image stability is something which u can control and doesn't mean with IS u are 100% shake proof..whilst F2.8 will never be able to achieve with a F4 lens and it's something beyond control..wahaha
wbrandon76
Deregistered
Bro,
Not sure if you seen this.. Chk out the review from Kai..
Canon 70-200mm Big Battle (f/2.8, f/2.8 II & f/4)
Not sure if you seen this.. Chk out the review from Kai..
Canon 70-200mm Big Battle (f/2.8, f/2.8 II & f/4)
Kai now is big star on Youtube, I like him ---- and starring sexy models in many of his dramatics reviews.
As per he said:
*F4 has the best value for money;
*Old version F2.8 has the comparable performance with the new F2.8,
*Will you wish to save a little bit more to get IS II? Yes, you will, because it's bloody brilliant.
So, his POLL will be F2.8.
=====Edit====
Some more DigitalRevTv is doing camera business online, so the related review is not 100% like us.
Last edited:
NewbietoPro
Member
I am not sure if i am going to make the right assumption here.
Comparing F2.8 Non IS and F4 IS:
F2.8 - F4 is around 1 stop diff
F4L IS has an IS of up to 4 stop.
F2.8's weight is almost twice of F4
If i compare purely on weight and IS, F4L should be a better value for money.
Then again, it's my own thought as weight is a critical consideration via my end.
F2.8L IS of cos has a better bokeh, but there is a price to pay, 2 to be exact here, Price and Weight.
If you do not mind the weight and price and wants assurance of the sharp tack photo, get F2.8L IS Mark 2.
If not, i believe a F4L IS Mark 2 should do you the trick.
For better bokeh, Canon 85f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2L should do the trick
I will go for f4L IS Mark 2 and 85f1.8 or 135L in this case. I believe it is better and value for money.
Further more, f4L IS is weather sealed
Afterall, it's up to TS to choose
Cheers
Comparing F2.8 Non IS and F4 IS:
F2.8 - F4 is around 1 stop diff
F4L IS has an IS of up to 4 stop.
F2.8's weight is almost twice of F4
If i compare purely on weight and IS, F4L should be a better value for money.
Then again, it's my own thought as weight is a critical consideration via my end.
F2.8L IS of cos has a better bokeh, but there is a price to pay, 2 to be exact here, Price and Weight.
If you do not mind the weight and price and wants assurance of the sharp tack photo, get F2.8L IS Mark 2.
If not, i believe a F4L IS Mark 2 should do you the trick.
For better bokeh, Canon 85f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2L should do the trick
I will go for f4L IS Mark 2 and 85f1.8 or 135L in this case. I believe it is better and value for money.
Further more, f4L IS is weather sealed
Afterall, it's up to TS to choose
Cheers
rhino123
Senior Member
I am not sure if i am going to make the right assumption here.
Comparing F2.8 Non IS and F4 IS:
F2.8 - F4 is around 1 stop diff
F4L IS has an IS of up to 4 stop.
F2.8's weight is almost twice of F4
If i compare purely on weight and IS, F4L should be a better value for money.
Then again, it's my own thought as weight is a critical consideration via my end.
F2.8L IS of cos has a better bokeh, but there is a price to pay, 2 to be exact here, Price and Weight.
If you do not mind the weight and price and wants assurance of the sharp tack photo, get F2.8L IS Mark 2.
If not, i believe a F4L IS Mark 2 should do you the trick.
For better bokeh, Canon 85f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2L should do the trick
I will go for f4L IS Mark 2 and 85f1.8 or 135L in this case. I believe it is better and value for money.
Further more, f4L IS is weather sealed
Afterall, it's up to TS to choose
Cheers
I am nidpicking here... f4L IS didn't have a mark II version. F2.8L had a mark II version.
Either way, both are good lenses... and depending on what matters more to TS. If he wanted the IS for whatever reasons, and cannot afford the f2.8L IS version of the lens, then maybe he could get the f4L IS... or go for a third party lens like the Sigma's 70-200mm f2.8 OS version (which had very very good reviews too).
NewbietoPro
Member
Damn. Ps. I keep having the wrong impression of the IS here. Thanks for correcting me
I just got a 70-200mm f4 IS lens and I love it! It's fast and has a nice bokeh.. Because of it's lighter weight, I can carry it to shoot sports pics without feeling tired that quickly...
Initially, I was struggling between these 2 lenses as well.... However, I decided to get the f4 due to the extra weight of the f2.8 and I'm unsure whether I will be able to take a clear/sharp photo without a tripod if it doesn't have the IS.... If I were to get the f2.8 lens, I would definitely get the IS Mark II! But I'll need to save up more for it! =)
Initially, I was struggling between these 2 lenses as well.... However, I decided to get the f4 due to the extra weight of the f2.8 and I'm unsure whether I will be able to take a clear/sharp photo without a tripod if it doesn't have the IS.... If I were to get the f2.8 lens, I would definitely get the IS Mark II! But I'll need to save up more for it! =)
NewbietoPro
Member
Between 1.8 to 1.9k
Csboi
Senior Member
Some recent wildlife photos taken with the light-weight 70-200 f/4L IS:
Oh, did I mention the lens is relatively light-weight?
Nice photos
