canon 70-200 dilemma

[Taylor510ce]

A friend wants to sell me his 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $1450...should I go for it or opt for the f/4 version and save some cash? Its pristine, so figure I could atleast get 1300 for it 6 months from now. I mainly shoot outdoors but may shoot some indoor or night concerts soon.

 

[Big Mike]

The F4 version is sharper...which is why Canon just released a new version of the F2.8 IS ('II'). The new version sells for $2300 while you can still get the old version, brand new for $1900.

You are probably right that it will hold it's value. High quality lenses usually do. So you could buy it and later sell it for a pretty good price. However, the new version will likely drive down the going rate for used 'old version' lenses. Both because it's not current and because a lot more photographers will be upgrading and selling their old ones.

 

[clanthar]

If you need the f/2.8 pay for it, if you don't need the f/2.8 don't pay for it. Remember it's not only more expensive to make a faster lens, it's also much more difficult from and optical/engineering standpoint and so as a basic rule: faster lens are poorer optical performers than their slower siblings. May not be the case with these two lenses but it's always a good basic rule. The Leitz 50mm f/2.0 Summicorn is the default best, not the more expensive 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.

Joe

 

[tsblo]

I think that some of the comment that faster lenses preform worse than the slower counter parts is a little off.

Tell me how well does the 70-200 f4 preform at f2.8?
The optimal sharpness of a lens is stopped down about 2 stops. The f4 would be sharpest at around f8, where as the f2.8 is sharpest at around f5.6.

Pro glass is expensive, but I don't know a pro who does not own a 70-200 f2.8. Heck, I own 2, in the event something were to happen to my main, I have a backup.

That said though, if your never going to use f2.8 why waste the money on it. Get the f4. I know a guy who uses a 70-200 f2.8 only in the studio at f10-11. It just makes no sense to me in that application. So consider how you will use it and your shooting style and make your decision from there.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Thanks guys, I just figured without paying much more for the 2.8 than I would for a new f/4 IS. i also have a guy with a non IS f/2.8 wanting 1100. I also like the 77mm filter size of the 2.8. I can use my cpl on more than one lens.

 

[TimothyHughes]

Both are excellent lenses. If you need to shoot in low light for say fashion runway or [night game] football you will want and need the f/2.8 version. Understand though, it's a tank and I don't like shooting with it unless I have a monopod/tripod.

 

[Big Mike]

I think that some of the comment that faster lenses preform worse than the slower counter parts is a little off.

In this case, it's not a generalization about fast lenses vs slow lenses. It's a comparison of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS and the Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS. I didn't really want to believe it myself, but from the tests I've seen, the F4 version is sharper overall.
But the new version of the F2.8, seems to be as good or better than the F4.

 

[Hardrock]

If you think you might shoot some low light than get the F2.8 version! I posted some pics of a rodeo I went to and the settings were 1/400 F2.8 at ISO 6400 and with out the F2.8 I wouldnt be able to get a fast enough shutter speed( and I was already at ISO 6400) so at F4 you would have some issues without a flash. Dont forget that IS is only good for stationary objects. I was using the 70-200 F2.8 IS mk 1 and yes it is not near as sharp as my primes but the versatility of the zoom at F2.8 cant be beat for certain situations. I see the 70-200 F4 versions for sale all the time in the sellers section but rarely see the F2.8 versions.

 

[clanthar]

I think that some of the comment that faster lenses preform worse than the slower counter parts is a little off.

It's a well established fact that, in the past at least, was acknowledge by the manufacturers. Zeiss was happy to say that the 80mm f/2.8 Planar was an excellent lens and as good as they could make it but, the 100mm f/3.5 Planar was even better because it was slower and they didn't have to push the design for the extra speed. Back in the darkroom the Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 was the defacto standard for printing from 35mm. I still have one. I also have the more expensive 60mm f/4 Rodagon that Rodenstock made very clear was the better lens.

Stopping a faster lens down of course improves its performance. But that doesn't guarantee it will then be the equal of it's slower sibling (also stopped down).

There have always been exceptions to the rule, for example when the manufacturer deliberately makes the slower lens cheaper, but as a general rule it holds true.

Joe

 

[Taylor510ce]

I think that some of the comment that faster lenses preform worse than the slower counter parts is a little off.

It's a well established fact that, in the past at least, was acknowledge by the manufacturers. Zeiss was happy to say that the 80mm f/2.8 Planar was an excellent lens and as good as they could make it but, the 100mm f/3.5 Planar was even better because it was slower and they didn't have to push the design for the extra speed. Back in the darkroom the Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 was the defacto standard for printing from 35mm. I still have one. I also have the more expensive 60mm f/4 Rodagon that Rodenstock made very clear was the better lens.

Stopping a faster lens down of course improves its performance. But that doesn't guarantee it will then be the equal of it's slower sibling (also stopped down).

There have always been exceptions to the rule, for example when the manufacturer deliberately makes the slower lens cheaper, but as a general rule it holds true.

Joe

I will most likely be stopped down to F4 anyway many times, unless I need that extra stop for low light shooting in which case its nice to know its there. Plus I figure, like I hinted at before, the 2.8 will be MUCH easier to move than the f/4 if I decided to sell ( even if it was to only make back 75% of what I pay ) then I pretty much got a very low price on renting a lens for 6months, or a year or whatever it may be.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Well ,I talked them down to $1400 and bought the 2.8 IS. The guy was a pro photog and this was in his backup kit. Economy has been hurting him so he needed to offload unneeded gear.This thing is pristine. So I think I got a decent deal. I will post some test shots with it soon for C+C. The thing focuses crazy fast.