Any Point in Swapping 70-200 F4IS for F2.8IS Mk1?

markmullen

markmullen

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,726
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Would there be any benefit in swapping my 6 month old 70-200 F4IS (and cash) for an older mk1 70-200 F2.8 IS ? I know I'd get an extra stop but are the IQs comparable?

I'd be able to use a 2x converter on the 2.8 and still retain full AF (instead of just centre point) but other than that any point?
 
Last edited:
Do you need the 2.8 or the IS? If it were me i'd do it in a heartbeat. If your getting cash with the 2.8 aswell, then i think anyone would do it :)
 
Is there any point.... it's a tough one to answer really, it depends if you really need to use the teleconverter, or f/2.8. If not, then there's not much point. The f/4 is cheaper, lighter, and regarded as sharper. But if you need to have the extra speed or length, then it's a no-brainer!

I'm just guessing here, but if you're not really sure if you'd benefit, then you might not!
 
Isn't the autofocus better on f2.8 lenses?
 
I made that move when I shot canon. I went from the f4 to the 2.8, the main thing I noticed was the extra size and Weight!! Both are cracking lens and it comes down to what you need it for, I upgraded as I was shooting football and indoor Ice hockey.

Another thing is if you have filters for the f4 they wont fit the 2.9 as its a 77mm and the f4 is 67mm if I remember correctly.

If you dont think you'll need the extra stop, I'd save your money and keep the lighter lens.
 
As said above, the f2.8 is a lot heavier than the f4 so if you don't need the extra stop then I'd not spend the money. I had the f4 non IS but hankered for something faster; now my bag with the faster lens and my 7d, together with my 17-55 f2.8 is bloody heavy....

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
I did exactly this.

Then sold it and bought my original F4 IS back a year later :)

Why?

The 2.8 IS Mk1 just isn't as sharp as the F4 IS. At f/2.8 it's noticably less sharp towards the long end than it is stopped down to f/3.2 or f/4 so I found that I was usually shooting at f/4 unless I really needed the extra stop which wasn't actually that often. Even at f/4 it's still not quite as sharp as the F4 IS.

Figured there was no point putting up with the downsides (extra cost & weight) if I was avoiding the wider aperture half the time and wanted my F4 IS back.

If you really want/need the extra stop then I'd contend that only the F2.8 IS Mk2 is a worthy upgrade path from the F4 IS and is the only path I'd ever consider in the future.
 
Vertigo1 said:
I did exactly this.

Then sold it and bought my original F4 IS back a year later :)

Snap

Why?

The 2.8 IS Mk1 just isn't as sharp as the F4 IS. At f/2.8 it's noticably less sharp towards the long end than it is stopped down to f/3.2 or f/4 so I found that I was usually shooting at f/4 unless I really needed the extra stop which wasn't actually that often. Even at f/4 it's still not quite as sharp as the F4 IS.

Figured there was no point putting up with the downsides (extra cost & weight) if I was avoiding the wider aperture half the time and wanted my F4 IS back.

If you really want/need the extra stop then I'd contend that only the F2.8 IS Mk2 is a worthy upgrade path from the F4 IS and is the only path I'd ever consider in the future.
Click to expand...

I had both the Mk1 f2.8 IS and the MkII f2.8 IS but still went back to the f4 IS. Unless you specifically need that extra stop of light and can't up the ISO any more I wouldn't bother.
 
Another factor to consider is weather sealing, the 2.8 IS I believe is weather sealed and would make a good combination with your 1d body unless you are only a fair weather motor sports tog :)
 
dacdac said:
Another factor to consider is weather sealing, the 2.8 IS I believe is weather sealed and would make a good combination with your 1d body unless you are only a fair weather motor sports tog :)
Click to expand...

I've sat in the p155ing rain with my /4 photographing football and not had a problem.

To answer the question; given what you've said, you are changing for change's sake so No, I wouldn't do it. For a MkII possibly, but not for MkI.
 
dacdac said:
Another factor to consider is weather sealing, the 2.8 IS I believe is weather sealed and would make a good combination with your 1d body unless you are only a fair weather motor sports tog :)
Click to expand...

I believe that the f4 IS has weathersealing (unlike the non IS version)
 
Yep, both the IS variants are weather sealed whilst neither of the non-IS ones are.
 
markmullen said:
I rely on the weather sealing on my F4 IS, particularly on Rally GB!
Click to expand...

Tell me about it - mine's gotten a bit soggy in the Welsh forests too :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top