Canon 70 - 200: f2.8 or f4

[Jay Gould]

Isn't it wonderful how we all have so many opinions!

When I started the camera/lens decision process, it first started with emails with Artie. He out of the box recommended the 1D3 and as hard as I fought :D I am buying the 1D3. Artie also recommended the 400mm DO and as hard as I fought (it's too big and heavy) :D I am buying the 400mm DO.

Next decision is which 70 - 200?

Artie said the following that the f/2.8 is quite large and heavy, it is a great lens and fast but do consider the lighter and smaller f/4. With a tripod collar and high ISOs you negate the need to carry the heavier f/2.8.

I have read so much about how great the f/2.8 is and the importance of the extra stop that I would like additional opinions regarding these two lenses AND the use of these lenses with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. Has anyone here done any comparative testing?

I do lean to the f/4 because of the weight; I do not want to sacrifice too much IQ.

Thanks, Jay

[arash_hazeghi]

I have the 70-200 f/4 IS, IMO this is the sharpest zoom lens Canon has ever made, I can shoot not worrying about focal length and aperture even on the full frame MKII where corner imperfections are more pronounced. I had a 70-200 f/2.8IS for a short while and the f/4 was sharper, it is also very light and doesn't need a collar, IS is newer generation closer to 4 stops, it's a killer lens:D

Here is a full resolution shot taken with my MKII, I'm not embedding cause it's a HUGE file.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/IMG_5550.JPG

[Simon Bennett]

Jay,
I second Arash's comment on the sharpness of this lens, here's an image of a female House Sparrow from Arrowtown, New Zealand, taken handheld with this lens and a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor, vertical crop from horizontal image. The background does looks nice here, but not unexpectedly, in more cluttered environments it doesn't blur the background as well as those large aperture supertelephotos.

Lens: EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM +1.4x; Focal length: 280mm; Subject distance: 2.9 m; ISO: 400; Canon 40D; f/8; 1/250

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi Jay,

I've had each of the Canon 70-200's (f/2.8/4/IS/non).

The f/2.8IS lens is a fantastic lens. However, like you said, it is large and cumbersome and almost never came with me on trips (I used this mainly for people shooting).

I have "stepped down" to the f/4IS model, and it comes with me everywhere I shoot. The updated IS mechanism is fantastic. I can shoot low light special events with this lens just as easily as I could with the 2.8IS.

Another vote for your f/4IS!

[Alfred Forns]

Hands down the 4.0 IS .... easy decision Jay !!! :)

[Jay Gould]

Done!!

Al, 5 votes - never forget Artie!!

Thanks guys.

I will find a few more questions/pearls to provide - watch for my Mack Warranty post on the new international warranty that starts from day one instead of day 366.

[Paul McAdams]

I'll play devils advocate here.... I prefer the 70-200 IS 2.8L. I am use to carrying my 100-400 so the 70-200 2.8 is no big deal. I like the extra aperture for better backgrounds plus I use it for a lot more than just birding. For indoor events and portraits, the 2.8 is the way to go. :)

As to extenders, when I bought my 70-200, my original plan was to buy a 2x and then sell the 100-400. Before I did, I rented a Canon 2x, put it on my 70-200, and carried both lenses to a local park. Everything I shot with the 2x 70-200 I shot with the 100-400. Some shots it was hard to tell which was which, but many of them were better with the 100-400. The 2x caused a good bit of chromatic aberration. I mentioned this to Art in a recent conf and he told me "user error". Heh... perhaps he is right, but I don't know what a user does to cause chromatic aberration. In any event, I returned the 2x and never looked back. I have heard the 1.4 is a much better extender....idk.

[Jay Gould]

I'll play devils advocate here.... I prefer the 70-200 IS 2.8L. I am use to carrying my 100-400 so the 70-200 2.8 is no big deal. I like the extra aperture for better backgrounds plus I use it for a lot more than just birding. For indoor events and portraits, the 2.8 is the way to go. :)

As to extenders, when I bought my 70-200, my original plan was to buy a 2x and then sell the 100-400. Before I did, I rented a Canon 2x, put it on my 70-200, and carried both lenses to a local park. Everything I shot with the 2x 70-200 I shot with the 100-400. Some shots it was hard to tell which was which, but many of them were better with the 100-400. The 2x caused a good bit of chromatic aberration. I mentioned this to Art in a recent conf and he told me "user error". Heh... perhaps he is right, but I don't know what a user does to cause chromatic aberration. In any event, I returned the 2x and never looked back. I have heard the 1.4 is a much better extender....idk.

:D I knew someone would come along and raise the indoor event issue - that is an important one to me too. I will bump the ISO and hope that the NR software does the job, and wait for the high IQ ISO 6400 body! Just around the corner in a few years; most are saying that the 5D2 is high IQ at 3200 so who know what the next couple of 1Dxs will bring.

Deamin' .........I'm always dreamin............ ;)

If I am going to add the 2X to the 70 - 200 because I specifically need the 400 or more, I will have the 400 DO to which I can add either the 1.4 or the 2.0.

Thanks for the comments Paul; I am going to go with the f/4 as I travel constantly and carrying both the 400 DO and the f/2 along with everything else...well, the weight just adds up after a while.



Cheers, Jay

[Maxis Gamez]

I have the f/4 and I now use it with a 1.4 and still creating sharp images.

[Robert Amoruso]

1D Mark III, ISO 800, 70-200mm f/4 IS with or w/o the 1.4xTC is the way to go. The extra speed is not worth the weight.

[Joe Milmoe]

You will be fine with the 70-200/4IS indoors. I too doubted its abilities.

I recently gave it a test in a grimly lit University theater performance.


50D, f/4, 1/30 sec, ISO 1600. Shot .jpg medium, no NR or sharpening, down-sized (bicubic) for web.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Jay the old faithful 70-200 F/4 non IS never leaves my side, I had both the 2.8IS and hardly used it, and I also sold my f/4 IS as the IQ was not up to the non IS and anyway I hardly use IS as I have fast lenses for that sort of indoor work.

My only zooms are 17-40, 24-70, and the 70-200 F/4 all my orher lenses are primes.

[Jay Gould]

The things we learn as you dig deeper!

The 70-200 f/4 does not come with a tripod collar; if you want to use one you buy the same collar as used on the 300 f/4.

Those of you that have this lens: do you use a collar or do you mount the lens on the camera and mount the camera on the ball?

Cheers, Jay

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Jay this lens is a lightweight and I have never had the need to use my 300 f/4's collar on it.

Even used on lightweight carbon fibre tripods with ball heads it is very stable without the collar and if like me you tend to carry more than one camera it is one less thing to get caught on your clothing.

PS I also take the collars off my 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 if not using a monopod or tripod.

It is one of Canon's sweetest lenses.

[Jay Gould]

Jay this lens is a lightweight and I have never had the need to use my 300 f/4's collar on it.

Even used on lightweight carbon fibre tripods with ball heads it is very stable without the collar and if like me you tend to carry more than one camera it is one less thing to get caught on your clothing.

PS I also take the collars off my 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 if not using a monopod or tripod.

It is one of Canon's sweetest lenses.

Have you used it on a tripod with teleconverters extending the lens?

Cheers, Jay