70-200 Question asked to death... again

[SubliminalThought]

I've looked at more than a dozen of threads to compare the following two Canon lenses

70-200 2.8L IS
70-200 4L IS

The only aspect which worries me is most of the posts generally say that the F4 is sharper than the F2.8 at the same apertures. Others say there is hardly anything between the two of them. Anyone know of more conclusive evidence of this or have any personal experiences with either lens?

[Sneeky]

I would be quite surprised if it is indeed sharper.I know with the 100-400mm L some were not as sharp as others.

There might not be to much between the two 70-200's but the f2/8 is very useful if the user shoots in low light conditions often though.

[koffiejunkie]

The photzone.de tests show it's swings&roundabouts, really. The difference between them is academic. Anyway, those four models are all at the top of the Canon pile. Buy the one you can afford.

[bwana]

The photzone.de tests show it's swings&roundabouts, really. The difference between them is academic. Anyway, those four models are all at the top of the Canon pile. Buy the one you can afford.Which four? f/2.8 IS L, f/4 IS L, and f/4 L? and 70-300?

[koffiejunkie]

f/2.8
f/2.8 IS
f/4
f/4 IS

From what I've read, the non-IS model (at least on the f/2.8) is sharper than the IS one. But again, from all the reviews I've seen, the difference is academic.

[bwana]

f/2.8
f/2.8 IS
f/4
f/4 IS

From what I've read, the non-IS model (at least on the f/2.8) is sharper than the IS one. But again, from all the reviews I've seen, the difference is academic.What do you know - I never knew they made a f/2.8 non IS otherwise I might have got it instead of the non IS f/4.

Not that I can find fault with the one I have.

[SubliminalThought]

The photzone.de tests show it's swings&roundabouts, really. The difference between them is academic. Anyway, those four models are all at the top of the Canon pile. Buy the one you can afford.

Well I always wanted the 70-200L lens out of glut rather than out of need, and lucky my real job pays ok so I can spoil myself so now and then. The prices in Dubai (I have a brother there) has recently been the same as here in SA. The price now in the US is just so tempting.

That said, went to ORMS to see the weight difference. Wow. The F2.8 is heavy I'm going to mull over my decision for a week or so and then choose. Thanks for all the replies.

[koffiejunkie]

What do you know - I never knew they made a f/2.8 non IS otherwise I might have got it instead of the non IS f/4.

I'm surprised, given your usual thoroughness...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_USM/index.asp) - 1,310g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_IS_USM/index.asp) - 1,470g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF_70200mm_f4L_USM/index.asp) - 705g
Canon EF 70-200mm f 4.0L IS USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF_70-200mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.asp) - 760g

I'm surprised at how little weight IS adds, especially on a lens that large.

[bwana]

I'm surprised, given your usual thoroughness...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_USM/index.asp) - 1,310g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF70_200mm_f2.8L_IS_USM/index.asp) - 1,470g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF_70200mm_f4L_USM/index.asp) - 705g
Canon EF 70-200mm f 4.0L IS USM (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF_70-200mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.asp) - 760g

I'm surprised at how little weight IS adds, especially on a lens that large.Weight's never bothered me - the cost of IS has. :)

[koffiejunkie]

Weight's never bothered me - the cost of IS has. :)

The cost does bother me, but I'm happy to pay it. It's one of those "better to have it when I don't need it than not have it when I do need it" tools. Just like seatbelts :)

[bwana]

The cost does bother me, but I'm happy to pay it. It's one of those "better to have it when I don't need it than not have it when I do need it" tools. Just like seatbelts :)Seatbelts are ubiquitous - IS is a [costly] optional extra. Kinda like mag wheels. ;)

[koffiejunkie]

Seatbelts are ubiquitous - IS is a [costly] optional extra. Kinda like mag wheels. ;)

Mag wheels have no practical function. IS has a lot of practical function for my shaky hands. :)

[ldmelsa]

You already have a the 70-300IS. You'll be a bit of an idiot to get one of these lenses, unless you need the speed of the f2.8 one. If you aren't a pro and not happy with the 70-300IS for any other reason that its speed, then I fear you will never be happy. If you need absolute sharpness when the lens is wide open, more speed, or better construction, then these lenses are the ones for you. :) They are prefect in every way.

[koffiejunkie]

You already have a the 70-300IS.

Who does? :confused:

[SubliminalThought]

Who does? :confused:

Me

[Sneeky]

That said, went to ORMS to see the weight difference. Wow. The F2.8 is heavy I'm going to mull over my decision for a week or so and then choose. Thanks for all the replies.

I shoot 99.9% of my shots handheld with a 300 f/2.8 IS which weighs much more than the 70-200 f/2.8.
The weight issue has never been an issue for me at all and I often go out for the whole day.

70-200mm f/4 is = 700g
70-200mm f/2.8 is = 1.310g
300mm f/2.8 is = 2.550g

I know a good few people that use the 70-200mm f/2.8 extensively, not one of them have anything bad to say of it, if your budget caters for it go with that and really don't stress the weight. Its a non issue.