Canon 70-200 f4 vs. 70-200 f2.8

[icassell]

As much as I love my f2.8 lenses, they are usually bigger and heavier and far more obvious than the same focal length lens but f4. I often use my nifty fifty now rather than my 17-50 f2.8 if I want to be a bit discrete. I have been in situations (recently at a rodeo) where I was sent back to my car with my camera and told "we don't allow big professional cameras". I might have made it in with a smaller lens. I didn't need lens speed for that daylight outdoor event.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've used both the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8, on a 50D the f/4 is sharper.

They're both L lenses, so build is the same. The only thing the F2.8 version has is that it's 1 stop faster. If you're using it for landscape, save your money, get the f/4. It's lighter, sharp, same range, and if you're serious, you'll be on a tripod anyway. If you'll be shooting events, the 2.8.

Canon's 70-200 f/4 IS is a lens I wish Nikon made, but they have so many different 70-200 2.8's it makes your head spin.

 

[usayit]

I've used both the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8, on a 50D the f/4 is sharper.

I can't tell you how many times I have said this and people look at me with strange looks. Even in a camera shop full of self admitted amateurs (me included) and they suddenly look at me like I don't know anything. I guess its like cars and horsepower... people want an easy rating system so they don't have to do the research.... so they assume larger aperture == ultimately better lens (for everyone).

Back then... it didn't matter... shop owners liked it when we sold the more expensive version regardless.. ;-)

 

[Derrel]

The one thing a person really needs to conssider today, with the advent of high-MP sensors, is that Image Stabilizer type lenses (Nikon has VR, Sigma OS) are a very,very big improvement to image quality on the higher-MP count bodies like the Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II; careful tests by qualified professionals are showing that the newer high MP bodies are showing very *serious* image degradation at hand-held speeds even in the 1/180 to 1/250 speed zones with these ultra-resolution cameras.

We had a similar paradigm shift when we went from basically 6 MP crop-frame d-slr bodies to 12.2 MP crop-frame cameras; lens defects and faults in technique that were masked by the low resolution of 6MP and 8MP bodies started to reveal themselves at 12 MP. Moving forward, I think many hand-held shooters will learn,some of them the hard way, that the image stabilizer versions of this lens are worth the added price.

My understanding is that the 70-200 f/4 IS version is actually an excellent lens that really does give up very little, if anything, to the f/2.8 versions in terms of optical performance.

 

[usayit]

I always thought that the term "image quality" was a function of the performance of the optics (resolving, control of distortion, control of chromatic aberration) regardless of blur introduced by photographer error... ie handshake.

 

[usayit]

In other words...

IQ of a lens doesn't change when a shot is taken on a tripod versus not on a tripod.

IQ of a lens doesn't change when a shot is taken with IS versus with non-IS.