Is there a significant difference.

Marc Jacobs

Marc Jacobs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
243
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.
I'm thinking if getting the Canon 70-200mm L F4 lens for my 550D. The thing is, I'm now torn between this one and the 2.8. I'm wondering if the difference between the 2 is vast enough to warrant spending an extra 500 of our earth pounds? Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
 
I upgraded from the f/4.0 to the f/2.8 mk2... Personally I found a massive difference in quality, well worth the extra money, wish I bought the f/2.8 to start with..
 
Get an f4 second hand and see if it's enough. If not sell it for the same money.

I'd say in order of sharpness of goes f2.8 II, f4 IS, f2.8 and f4 about the same.

The non IS f4 is a cracking lightweight L though.
 
It's not so much about the image quality. It's all about whether you need to shoot at f2.8. I do a lot of low light stuff. Couldn't do half as good a job at f4. Remember your camera focuses wide open. It's always going to appreciate more light to work with.
Always better to have as fast a lens as you can afford. Consider the non IS version. It's a cracker. (so long as you don't need IS)
I upgraded to the IS version and then never turned it on !!
I found it wasn't required for sport.
 
Keep in mind the 2.8 is bigger and heavier than the 4.

The F4 non is is great value and as mentioned above if you buy 2nd hand you can resell at the same price roughly.

But if you need 2.8 you need 2.8....
 
The f2.8 is a hefty lump; most people only carry it when they know they are going to need it, whereas the f4 can live in the bag.
The lens you have with you is vastly superior to the lens left at home.

Worth noting - the f4 takes the 1.4xTC and focuses perfectly.
It is only the 2xTC that won't focus on most DSLRs.

Personally, I'd recommend the IS version of either lens as unless you are in good light then you will always be close to getting camera shake with no safety margin. The IS is your safety margin.
 
Many thanks for the information. So much to take in but I think I will heed your advice and look for a second hand F4 and then upgrade as and when.
 
If you can afford the f2.8 non-IS then you can afford the f4 IS. Of the 5 versions of the 70-200 this is the second sharpest. It's also quite significantly lighter. So, if image quality, IS and portability are your main factors, then get the f4 IS. If f.28 is the most important feature, then get the Mk 1 and save for the MkII.
 
I started with an f4 non IS and got some great photos out of it, though once I'd got it I yearned for the 2.8 version and wanted IS as well. I saved up for a while and sold my f4 and got the 2.8 IS MkI and that was even better than the f4. It wasn't as sharp wide open as the f4 was wide open, but stopping it down to f4 gave me a much sharper image than the f4 stopped down.
I've had delivery of the f2.8 IS L MkII today though and the difference in that is totally amazing. I've read plenty of threads on here about how good the MkII is, but you never really believeit until you see it. I saw it today and now I believe it, every word of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top