Printable View
I am interested in buying either the Canon EF 70 -200 F 2.8L IS USM or the Canon 70 - 200 F 4.0L IS USM.
I do mostly outdoor photography, sometimes at low light. I shoot with a Canon 40D and I have a Canon EF 400 5.6L, a Canon EF 100 F 2.8 Macro, and a Canon EF-S 17 - 85and am looking for something to fill the gap in between. I have read reports that say the 2.8 has sharpness issues.
Any recommendations?
Jim Knoy
www.jimknoy.com
HI Jim Can tell you what I did under similar circumstances
I had the 2.8 Version and switch to the f 4.0 My concern was weight vs the one stop gain, in the film days it would have been worth it but not now. Both are very sharp but the light weight of the smaller lens is a treat to use !!!
btw moving this to equipment issues....
I use the 70-200 f/2.8 extensively and have never heard of sharpness issues. The only issue that I have seen, and confirmed in many articles around the web, is that is sucks with the 2X teleconverter. Don't even try that.
tom friedel
I chose the 70-200 f/4 for its lighter weight. It is impressively sharp.
I own both. Both are very sharp. I have used the f/2.8 with the 2X only a bit but had excellent results. I have been using the f/4 lens for the past year or so because of its lighter weight and smaller size.
If I only had a nickel for each time that a "soft lens" turned out to be operator error...
Thanks to everyone for your timely and expert advice. I went with the F/4. I decided to save some $$ for a tilt lens. I will be asking you all about which Canon tilt lens to get later, when I get that buying itch again.
