Canon 70-200 L IS - 1:2.8 vs.1:4

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Iron Flatline, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. Hi everyone.

    I now the 70-200 1:4 L IS isn't out yet, but it will be coming out soon. I am interested in buying a good 70-200 lens, but wanted to get everyone's impression on the differences.

    I was in a store yesteday and compared the 1:2.8 IS vs the regular 1:4 with the assumption that the new IS version of the 1:4 won't be that much bigger or heavier.

    One thing that was immediately clear is that the 2.8 weighs almost twice as much, if not more. It must change the use of that lens. The heavier 2.8 actually comes with a nifty tri-pod collar that allows a quick rotation between landscape and portrait orientation. My concern is that if I'm dependant on a monopod I will end up getting pretty limited use out of the lens.

    What would my usage be? Well, a little of everything. Primarily I enjoy taking high-quality pics of my kids, and I like shooting urban landscapes. both those are little bit more "walk-around shooting" than the heavier lens might allow.

    What has your experience been with these lenses? How have you used them, and seen others use them?

  2. usayit

    usayit No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Nov 15, 2003
    Likes Received:
    North New Jersey, United States of America
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    didn't we already go through this topic?

    The 70-200mm f2.8L IS is a wonderful zoom... one of canon's best. Its heavy.

    The 70-200mm f4L IS is rumoured to be the same glass as the non-IS. It too is known to be a great zoom. It is compact and lighter.

    So you have to decide:

    * light weight vs heavy
    * low light f2.8 vs f4
    * High price tag vs acceptable price tag.

    Just as in the previous thread... everyone on this board will most likely push their opinions to boost up the 70-200 f2.8L IS as the God of Canon Zooms regardless of the persons needs and what they shoot.

    I have the 70-200m f2.8L IS and I love the quality of the images it produces. Unfortunately, it is also my LEAST used lens due to the weight. My cousin shoots with the 70-200mm f4L.... its a lovely lens too and he has no complaints carrying it with him everywhere. Whats the point of having such a nice lens that you just won't carry? As a result, I'm seriously considering selling mine to free up finances to other things including funding my growing addiction to Leica (quick, light weight, easy to carry, grassroots, high quality).
  3. Don't make me crazy with Leica, that thing has entered my bloodstream as well.

    Yeah, I know it was covered previously as part of an overall discussion about various lenses, but I was hoping to attract some additional opinions.
  4. lostprophet

    lostprophet No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Feb 10, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    got the 2.8 wouldn't get rid of it for anything
  5. Jeff Canes

    Jeff Canes No longer a newbie, moving up!

    May 19, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Hollywood, FLA USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    I also have the 2.8 and love it for shooting at 75-150 feet, but would like a long lens for shooting at 300-400 feet

Share This Page