Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM v/s Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM

[ashish]

Hi,

I need help in deciding whether to buy the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM or Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM. There is a substantial price difference between the two (In India it costs approximately $2800 for the 2.8L IS II and around $1300 for the 4L). I wonder if the 2.8L provides enough value add for the difference in price. I use a 7D.

Thanks,
Ashish

[Colin Southern]

Hi Ashish,

Keep in mind that the F2.8L varient is now the II model (as you mention) -- so it's not only 1 stop faster than the F4 version, it also has improved optics. I shoot with it a LOT - it's expecially good when married with either teleconverter (EF1.4x or EF2.0x).

Keep in mind also, that if you go for the F4 version, you lose autofocus if you use it with a EF2.0x teleconverter.

As to the "difference in value", I'm afraid that only you can make that call!

[stevewe88]

Hi Ashish
I went through this exact dilemma about 6 months ago. I guess it boils down to the usual question of what do you really want the lens for?

Personally I opted for the F4 IS for the main reason that until I get around to getting the 24-105 F4L IS, I knew that the 70-200 would end up being my general walking around lens and the F4 is considerably lighter than the F2.8

I always intend to get the F2.8 but I worked on the theory that the F4 will hold its value well and can easily be traded in against a 2.8 in the future.

I can assure you that whatever one you get, you will not be disappointed. They are both absolutely superb lenses. The reviews that I read while making the choice all said that the two lenses were virtually identical at all apertures from f4 right through to the smallest.

Steve

[Colin Southern]

The reviews that I read while making the choice all said that the two lenses were virtually identical at all apertures from f4 right through to the smallest.

Hi Steve,

I suspect the reviews were comparing the F4 version with the original F2.8 versions, not the new F2.8 II version, which the OP is referring to.

[stevewe88]

Aside from not wanting to question your superior knowledge, I dare say you are right Colin as I think the II had only been available a very short while when I was doing my research.

[Colin Southern]

Aside from not wanting to question your superior knowledge, I dare say you are right Colin as I think the II had only been available a very short while when I was doing my research.

Basically there's not a lot of difference with the II version, apart from being sharper, and a 1 stop better IS unit.

[ashish]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

I know it's a comparatively high price to pay but i think i will opt for the 2.8L purely as a long term decision. Apart from the 1 stop advantage it provides over the 4L (which might come in handy especially during low light photography) and the better optics of the II version; in India we do not get a good trade off value in case i decide to go in for the 4L now and then look at replacing it with the 2.8L.

Now need to dig deeper into my pockets and hopefully be happier for it!!!

Cheers,
Ashish

[rpcrowe]

I believe that you will be extremely happy with your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens. If I did not use my 70-200mm lens as an all around and carry everywhere lens on a second 1.6x camera, I would have chosen the f/2.8L IS II. However, that lens, mounted on a second camera is just too heavy for me to carry during an eight to ten hour day of walk-around shooting.

I have carried my 300mm f/4L IS (which is just a few grams lighter in weight than the f/2.8L IS II lens) and it is uncomfortable on full days of walk-around photography. I can carry my f/4L IS AND the extra 1.6x body at the weight of the f/2.8 IS II lens alone.

However, the better compatibility with a 1.4x TC and retaining autofocus with a 2x TC is certainly a big plus for the f/2.8L IS II.

[ashish]

Took the plunge today and got the 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM. Looking forward to some great pics.

Cheers,
Ashish

[Donald]

Took the plunge today and got the 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM. Looking forward to some great pics.

Good on you. I look forward to seeing the results.

[Colin Southern]

Took the plunge today and got the 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM. Looking forward to some great pics.

Cheers,
Ashish

Congrats on the new purchase!

[Bill Yeung]

ashish:

I owned 7D and 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II.
you will never want to trade it, to upgrade it with better optical quality in this focal range as you already go the best.
It is expensive, it is heavy, but the happiness results from the pictures will take away all the pain and sore.
Welcome , on board.

Enjoy.

Bill

[ashish]

Thanks folks. Will definitely post the pics.

Cheers,
Ashish

[Marie Hass]

Hi, everyone.

I read this thread with interest because I am facing the same conundrum. I have pretty well settled on upgrading to the 7d, but have been agonizing over my next lens. I currently have a Canon Xsi, the kit lens, and the 70-300 4.5/5.6 IS USM telephoto. I have nothing for lower light conditions, and the L 2.8 seems that it will be a good fit. Thank you, Bill for your comment especially. Your commentary about your experiences have helped to cement my decisions.

Marie

[Eric M]

Don't see much difference in them optically... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=0

[DTruex]

One thing to remember for those people using the 7D, 60D or any other cropped sensor camera body, you will be getting 112mm focal length at the widest view. You will get a nice telephoto effect at 320mm as a bonus though. Attach a 1.4x converter and you have a heavy telephoto combo with a 156-448 range.

Nice lens. Enjoy.

[ashish]

Just got a newsletter from Canon stating that the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM has been awarded the best professional lens 2011 by TIPA (Technical Image Press Association)

[Colin Southern]

Just got a newsletter from Canon stating that the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM has been awarded the best professional lens 2011 by TIPA (Technical Image Press Association)

It would have been a brave man who betted against it!

[JonathanC]

Don't see much difference in them optically... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=0

If you change the f/2.8 to f/4, the difference is dramatic.
If I were shooting test charts I'd get the f/4 and a huge tripod. 1/2 second at f/8 should do it. But, I don't shoot test charts so the f/2.8 would win hands down.

[Eric M]

If you change the f/2.8 to f/4, the difference is dramatic.
If I were shooting test charts I'd get the f/4 and a huge tripod. 1/2 second at f/8 should do it. But, I don't shoot test charts so the f/2.8 would win hands down.

That would be evaluating the f/2.8 lens stopped down vs the f/4 lens wide open. A better comparision might be to shoot them both at f/5.6.

The truth of the matter is that there is little IQ difference between the two.