f/4 vs f/2.8?

[Dao]

This one shot with the 70-200mm f/4L at f/4 and 1/400 (non-IS version)

Raw -> LR -> sharpen/noise remove -> basic exposure adjustment. (No PS selective sharpening, all done in LR)

 

[sactown024]

thats an amazing shot! Ia ctually started looking into the sigma version, come to find out its more expensive than the canon one....

 

[MLeeK]

thats an amazing shot! Ia ctually started looking into the sigma version, come to find out its more expensive than the canon one....

I wish the canon version had been that price when I bought! I LOVE my sigma, but I would have bought Canon first because it's Canon!

 

[willis_927]

I use the 70-200 F4 non IS all the time for weddings, engagements, families. It stays on one of my cameras 99% of the time, and I keep a different focal length lens on a different body.

Its very sharp I have heard from people before that its actually sharper than the 2.8.

 

[Scuba]

From the things I have read and heard the f/4 IS is extremely sharp and arguably sharper than the f/2.8 IS I, however the f/2.8 IS II is the sharpest of the canon 70-200 lineup. That being said the f/4 is 1/2 the weight and smaller, but does still let in 1/2 the light. At 1/2 the price of the 2.8 II it is a strong choice. I think your body plays a big role here as well with the ISO performance. On say a 5d mkIII doubling the ISO for that extra light probably won't make a difference. On a 5d classic it may be more important to have the 2.8 as the ISO performance is no where near the mkIII.

 

[pdelcarmen]

So what you guys are saying is your trading weight for the Light Capabilities right? How about the mark 1 70-200 2.8 is that a viable choice at this point or not at all? I want the Mark 2 but the sharpness of the F4 really is stunning. If its sharper then the mark 1 should I even bother the 2.8 mark 1?

 

[MLeeK]

So what you guys are saying is your trading weight for the Light Capabilities right? How about the mark 1 70-200 2.8 is that a viable choice at this point or not at all? I want the Mark 2 but the sharpness of the F4 really is stunning. If its sharper then the mark 1 should I even bother the 2.8 mark 1?

The MK I is going to be a great, viable choice. The new version is $2K for a reason, but the original is still a superb lens. It's still one that you will want to stop down at least 1/3 stop to insure your sharpness, but beautiful lens. If you don't have the budget for the new one, you won't be disappointed in the "old" one.

 

[pdelcarmen]

Thanks Mleek! I really appreciate the input