Which one?

70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 2.8 IS Mk 1.

I can buy a new f4 or second hand f2.8 MK1 for about the same price. Just sold my only landscape lens so no more of those.

I would most likley us it with a 1.4 extender for photographing seabirds on a boat. With the extender does it make the f4 a f5.6? I used a 2.8 MK2 recently and it worked well but I do wonder if the expense of the 2.8 is worth it. I'm looking for a lens that I can hand hold all day. I have read a good review of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which is well priced.

Any comments from those that have used both of these lenses more than welcome - other options put forward also considered.

I assume you are referring to the Canon lenses? At one time I owned the f/4 version and had on loan the vers. I of the f/2.8. I'm a stickler for sharpness and found that I preferred the f/4 over the f/2.8 for sharpness and the f/4 was much lighter too. Having stated this, I have since bought the ver II of the f/2.8 and sold the f/4 because I find that I have more flexibility with the f/2.8 and the lens is about as sharp as it gets.

It's a tough call, but don't overlook the weight issue especially if you plan to hand-hold the lens for an extended period. The 2.8 can get heavy.

I can't comment on the Sigma.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

the 70-200 f/4 IS is sharper than 70-200 F/2.8 MKI, the 70-200 f/2.8 MKII is sharper than both, the sharpest 70-200 ever built and in fact a legendary lens in sharpness. I would get the f/2.8 MKII if you can afford it because it is also usable with the MKIII 2X TC both in terms of IQ and it will also AF on non-pro bodies. If that's too much just get the f/4, don't get the old f/2.8.

Tom,

I used to own the F4 and it is a truly wonderful lens, if weight is an issue then get this, with the usable higher ISO nowadays the higher F stops become less of an issue.

I now have the F2.8 MkII and that is pretty good as well, but of course quite a bit more expensive.

Thanks for the comments - yes Canon lenses Alan. The 70-200 2.8 MK2 is out of the picture due to its cost. I have had to sell some gear to even look at getting this new lens. It is a toss up between the 70-200 f4 or the 70-200 f2.8 series 1. I trust Arash's judgement so it looks like the 70-200 f4 will be the lens. Arash, will the 70-200 f4 and the 2x TC III still give me AF with the 1d MK4?

BTW the seabirds will not be on the boat I will be - bad grammar!

Hi Tom.
The 70-200 f/4 IS is def better than f/2.8 MKI in terms of sharpness, IS and AF speed as it is a much newer lens. The f/2.8 MKI is pretty much obsolete and it's not that sharp wide open on the new high res digital bodies...that's why Canon updated it. not worth buying IMO. Get the f/4. I had that lens for 2 years and always loved it.

And yes, it will AF with MKIV (center sensor but with the 2X the AF is a bit slow and IQ will suffer). Also consider the new 70-300L in that price range.

what is your primary application for this lens?

Seabirds in flight as well as close by in the water. I would be on a boat trying to take images of birds as big as albatrosses flying in and landing next to the boat. I want the zoom capacity as you can have the same bird flying in 30 feet away then sitting in the water 5 feet from you. Also the boat moves around making it all but impossible to use a big prime lens for the in flight shots.

Have you had a chance to use the 70-300?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Rambaut

Seabirds in flight as well as close by in the water. I would be on a boat trying to take images of birds as big as albatrosses flying in and landing next to the boat. I want the zoom capacity as you can have the same bird flying in 30 feet away then sitting in the water 5 feet from you. Also the boat moves around making it all but impossible to use a big prime lens for the in flight shots.

Have you had a chance to use the 70-300?

---

Even for close birds 200mm is too short so you will be using the lens with 1.4X TC all the time. Forget about the 2X as the AF is slow and you are not going to make sharp handheld flight shots. the 70-300 is the obvious choice you will get a fast sharp 300mm vs a slower softer 280mm. I have not used the 70-300 myself by Doug uses one in Costa Rica and also for his SoCal tern shots, the focus and sharpness are both great. I'd def get that lens instead

Gee these things are never easy!

The cost of the 70-300 is about $1800 (AUS) new compared to the 70-200 f4 at $1600.

The f4 is about 760g as compared to the 70-300 at 1050g. I may go and look at these two lenses tomorrow.

If anyone that has used the 70-300 could chime in that would be great.

Tom, if you are ok with not having zoom and IS, then consider a 100f/2(or 85/1.8)-200f/2.8L prime combo. excellent lenses....very light, big max apertures, excellent sharpness, contrast and bokeh. reasonably priced. the 200 f/2.8L is very very sharp and shud be good for big seabirds that come close to the boat. it takes 1.4x very well. havent tried with 2x though.

I am guessing you really want a zoom though. good points provided above. I just thought I'd give you one more option to think about. I am a sucker for big max apertures and, just like you, the new 70-200 f/2.8 was out of my budget.