MastaHanky

I'm finally in the market for a 70-200mm lens.

There are four different options:

70-200mm f/4
70-200mm f/4 IS
70-200mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8 IS

Do any of you have any experience comparing the four lenses?

Is the extra stop worth the extra cost jumping up to the f/2.8?

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is very heavy - over three pounds. Is it nice enough of a lens that it's worth carrying the extra weight in a backpack all day (vs, say the 1.68 lb f/4 IS)?

bertsirkin

All things being equal, there isn't much need to go for the f2.8 lens if you don't need it (only journalism comes to mind). With higher-ISO speeds as good as they are, at least with newer bodies, you can always double your ISO get get the exposure benefits of an f2.8 lens.

bert

tehiota

I personally own the 70-200 f/2.8, NON-IS. You may not feel the need for 2.8; however for a reasonable amount of $, you can put a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter on your 2.8 and a F-stop or 2. So with a $500 2x teleconverter your 70-200 2.8 is now a 140-400/5.6 Lens. Whereas the f/4 would become f/8. The extra reach at lower f was something I desired.

Because of the weight of the IS, I'd most likely end up using it on a monopod/tripod and those negating some of the premium price of the IS and thus went with the non-IS.

tehiota

rkkwan

I used the 4 IS for quite a while and now the 2.8 IS II.

I wouldn't recommend either of the non-IS ones as they are older with slightly inferior optics compared to the IS version of both lenses.

I considered the 2.8 IS II to be the best EF/EF-S mount lens I've ever owned. It's simply flawless. Incredibly sharp at 2.8; super fast and silent focus; extremely well built. And I also carry the 1.4x III most times when I need more reach.

The only downside of this lens is its price and its weight and bulk. I am talking about when I have to carry it around when traveling. It is extremely well balanced when I am shooting it on a 7D - not too heavy or big. Just when I am carrying it from place to place. That's the only time when I missed the 4 IS.

So, think how much time you're using it when traveling and how you travel... In a car is not a problem apparently.

MastaHanky

That's actually an excellent point. I currently have an XTi, which only goes to ISO1600 and isn't very usable. However a lot of the newer bodies go up to 6400 or beyond and the higher ISOs are much more usable.

Because my travel habits often involve me lugging a backpack around all day (as opposed to driving everywhere), weight is a serious consideration for me. I wonder if the f/4 IS + a newer body (with better ISOs) is the best combination for my situation.

piper28

To be honest, with that camera, I'd seriously consider going with the 70-300 IS. It's not an L lens, but for a non-L it's generally considered to be a very good quality lens. Obviously, it is a variable aperature, and starts at 4, so depending on just how dark of areas you plan on taking pictures in, that can be an issue. It's a little lighter than the f/4 IS.

Obviously a lot depends on what you're planning on using it for. I own the 700-300 IS myself (and actually, it's with an XTI), and so far most of my purposes I've been very happy with it. Given that I'm entirely a hobbyist, and never plan on making money with my photography, I've found it difficult to justify paying significantly more for a lens that's got a shorter reach, even if it is a better quality lens. However, when I go through the photos I've taken over the years, of the ones that I'm truly proud of, a number of these were taken with that lens.

The rotating front on this lens is a little annoying though, means you can't really use a polarizing filter on it.

Course, it was also an easier decision to make when I bought it 5 years ago, since it was about $150 less than it is now.

(I've tried doing the trick of taping the pins and using a TC with the 70-300, because I know some people have had success with it, but I've never had a lot of luck so far. I think at least part of that is that it's definitely marginal to do that on an XTI, and a newer camera I think I might have a little better luck with.)

McG

I also have a 70-200 F2.8ISII, which I bought after trading in an older Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

The 70-200 F2.8ISII is on a par sharpness wise with my 300F2.8 IS. It is that good.

If you can afford it, then you won't be disappointed.

Another option to consider is the new 70-300L f4-f5.6 IS. It would be a good bit lighter than the 70-200 F2.8 & give you some extra reach.

MastaHanky

Interesting perspective. I am purely a hobbyist too and have no intention on ever being more than that. I hadn't really considered the 75-300 IS - I have a 75-300 non-IS that I was unimpressed with and it has been sitting around collecting dust. I didn't think the IS version would be that much of an improvement. Right now I've been using the 18-200mm as a walkaround lens and also use it for telephoto (although it's mediocre at that too). The extra reach of the 300mm is definitely a selling point.

I guess I may need to take a step back and evaluate more than just a lens. I was planning on upgrading my body because it's been to hell-and-back and it shows. It's been dropped, had beer spilled on it, rained on, you name it. I was considering upgrading to a 50D or a 60D because of the weather sealing. But the GPS feature of the T4i is a huge selling point for me (I take my camera on every trip). Perhaps a T4i + 75-300 IS would be a better use of my money.

pnsnkr

Yep, my sentiment exactly. I own a 70-200/2.8 non-IS + 2X converter. With this setup, I now have 70-400/2.8-5.6 lens that I feel is more versatile than owning two separate 70-200 + 100-400 lenses.

I also carry a tripod whenever I have the need to use the 70-200; so IS has not been in my equation so far.

piper28

The 75-300 non-IS lens was definitely considered to be a subpar lens. The 70-300 IS (note, 70, not 75) was a significant improvement optically over it, it's not the same lens with IS slapped on it.

That 70-300 IS L lens also looks like it has a lot of potential, although at twice the price. But it looks like they went with a similar design and improved it with the better USM motor. Probably has better IS too since it's a newer lens. Same aperature range though.

Develish

What will you be using the lens for? Plane spotting? Portrait?

I am not a Canon user, but I do use the Nikon 70~200 f/2.8 and simply put, it is one of the finest lenses made by Nikon, and I have heard the same from my Canon friends about the f/2.8 IS in Canon.

If you want to do plane spotting, the 100~400 is a long time favourite of many.

felipegarcia

If weight is a concern, you might want to look at the 70-300 DO IS. It uses diffractive optics which make it a lot more compact, but it's not expensive, and it does have some unique optical characteristics.

I have the 70-200 f4 non IS, and I find it to be a great lens. Unless I am planning a dedicated spotting trip, I take that over my Sigma 80-400 OS, with a 1.4x TC. The weight savings are significant (I believe the 80-400 is about the same as a 70-200 f2.8, weight wise). If you don't need the low light performance, then you should look at the F4, based on size/weight alone.

Optically, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is amazing from what I hear. If it really is on par with the 300 2.8 IS / IS II then it's more than amazing. I have not shot with any 70-200 2.8 but I have with a 300 2.8 IS. The f4 version non-IS is pretty good, more when you consider the lens is only $700 or so (I believe I paid $640 back in 2011), and it's lightweight enough that the IS isn't really necessary unless the shutter speed starts getting low.