Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 v f4

Keefh

Keefh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
128
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
What are the pros and cons of these two lens and their relative re-sale value? I know the f2.8 is heavier but is it worth trying out the lighter f4 and up-grading later?
 
It all depends what you want to use it for. The lighter f4 has equal if not better IQ, it's cheaper and lighter too, but the IQ on the 2.8 at 2.8 is way better;)

So - do you need every ounce of light capturing ability of the 2.8, or will the f4 do enough for you. What's your budget and priorities?
 
Phil V said:
It all depends what you want to use it for. The lighter f4 has equal if not better IQ, it's cheaper and lighter too, but the IQ on the 2.8 at 2.8 is way better;)

So - do you need every ounce of light capturing ability of the 2.8, or will the f4 do enough for you. What's your budget and priorities?
Click to expand...

For the 1st time I couldnt agree more with phill.

Id have the f4 and stick the iso up a stop to get the speed back.
If you plan on getting a 2x converter id say the f2.8 tho
 
barratt1988 said:
For the 1st time I couldnt agree more with phill.

Id have the f4 and stick the iso up a stop to get the speed back.
If you plan on getting a 2x converter id say the f2.8 tho
Click to expand...

I've put a 2x on my F4 and even wide open it sems pretty damn good, admittedly my camera will Af at F8 and high Iso isnt shabby either :)
 
Thanks for that guys. Can someone explain how the converter works and costs?
 
Thanks. That was interesting. I'll have to really consider the f4 now
 
MatBin said:
I've put a 2x on my F4 and even wide open it sems pretty damn good, admittedly my camera will Af at F8 and high Iso isnt shabby either :)
Click to expand...

Yes if you fnt mind using iso 1600 but id say its a very viable option
 
I recently bought the F4 and couldn't be happier with it really on my 40D.

It is my first upgraded lens compared to my kit lenses
 
Last edited:
Keefh said:
Thanks for that guys. Can someone explain how the converter works and costs?
Click to expand...

Basically its just a magnifying glass, no moving parts, *** 180 will get you a second hand one. It effectively means an f4 becomes an f8, so you need a 1series or a 5d3 to take advantage of it if you put it on an f4 lens. 1600 iso on a 5d3 is no problem.
 
MatBin said:
It effectively means an f4 becomes an f8, so you need a 1series or a 5d3 to take advantage of ....
Click to expand...

you've missed two words out AUTO FOCUS, it'll work just fine on any body if manually focusing.

Also on Canon they are Extenders, not convertors. A bit pedantic but calling them by the right name may help people new to the topic search for info easier.
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
you've missed two words out AUTO FOCUS, it'll work just fine on any body if manually focusing.

...
Click to expand...
Speaking of pedantic ;):

Of course, manually focussing an effective f8 lens using a low end consumer body with a pentamirror and tiny viewfinder is just inconvenient, not an object lesson in frustration at all :gag:
 
it might be worth noting that you can get a canon fit sigma 70-200 f2.8 for the price of a canon 70-200 f4

okay so the sigma usually doesnt have OS , but thats only an issue if you are planning on using it in low light without a mono/tripod
 
If you're using all the Canon kit, the auto focus works fine with the extender on the f2.8 (not sure about the f4). Might be different per camera though, Canon publish a matrix of what works with what somewhere on their website.
 
I'd love a 5d iii but that'll have to wait. Thanks for the heads up!
 
Keefh said:
What are the pros and cons of these two lens and their relative re-sale value? I know the f2.8 is heavier but is it worth trying out the lighter f4 and up-grading later?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the non IS versions or the IS versions as there's a difference in IQs.

If you read the reviews the original f2.8 was a very good lens and was sharper than the MKI IS version that came next, but the MKII IS is supposed to be very good and better than either f2.8 versions.

The f4 non IS is probably one of Canons best budget L lenses, but the IS version was another step up in IQs, with reports that it was sharper than the f2.8 IS MKI wide open.

I've been very happy with the f4 non IS and MKI f2.8 IS versions, although the MKI f2.8 doesn't take a TC very well, been unimpressed with the images and speed of the lens with the 1.4x TC and wouldn't even want to contemplate a 2x TC, although the MKII version is suppose to be streets better performance with the MKIII TCs
 
Last edited:
pete.rush said:
Are we talking about the non IS versions or the IS versions as there's a difference in IQs.

If you read the reviews the original f2.8 was a very good lens and was sharper than the MKI IS version that came next, but the MKII IS is supposed to be very good and better than either f2.8 versions.

The f4 non IS is probably one of Canons best budget L lenses, but the IS version was another step up in IQs, with reports that it was sharper than the f2.8 IS MKI wide open.

I've been very happy with the f4 non IS and MKI f2.8 IS versions, although the MKI f2.8 does take a TC very well, been unimpressed with the images and speed of the lens with the 1.4x TC and wouldn't even want to contemplate a 2x TC, although the MKII version is suppose to be streets better performance with the MKIII TCs
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. I think I'd prefer the IS version of either lens. Presently looking around and considering the pennies.
 
I always believe that the more u change,the more u lost.
that's why i always plan my gear purchase carefully.
if given the above options,i would go for the F2.8 even though it may be heavier but not that heavy afterall.
reason being,u can go up F2.8 to F4 but not vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top