Any users of the Canon 70-200 L F2.8 & F4 USM???

[A M Spalding]

Hi All,

I am in the process of trying to work out what lens to get next. It was initally between the 70-200 and the 100-400 but I have heard some rather disturbing reports on the 100-400. So it is between the following lenses -

Canon 70-200 L F2.8 USM

Or

Canon 70-200 L F4.0 USM

The reason I have opted for the Non 'IS' version of the 70-200 is because I rarely shoot in low light conditions, and I have also read that the F2.8 out performs the F4.0 version. There is quite a price difference, but if what I have heard about the F2.8 is true then I can justify the extra spend.

Have any other forum members used both versions of the 70-200 (F4 and F2.8 Non IS)

Many help in advance - I'm pulling my hair out trying to work this all out.

Adam

[Simpleboy]

well, you said you didnt want the IS version because you rarely shoot low light, however
the F/4L IS is waaaay sharper than the non IS.

Check this out to compare the 4 IS not the 2.8 at various aperture and focal length settings.

Just something to consider

[NF Spotter]

Happy F4 user

Hey,

I have had the F4 non IS model for about four months now. My copy is quite sharp, and produces perfectly acceptable results wide open at F4. At F5.6 and above the image quality is simply beautiful. I have not used the pricier 2.8, but for daylight shooting the 2.8 aperture is unnecessary and of course is heavier to lug around

From everything I have read the f4 IS is sharper than the F4 non IS (and the 2.8 ) and of course it offers you the flexibility of IS. If price is not a consideration I would get the F4 IS model, alas price was a consideration for me.

As you were considering the 100-400mm L, I would give more consideration to where/what you are going to be shooting however. 200mm may not be long enough for the subjects / locations you will be shooting. While I have read the stories about sample variation in the 100-400mm Ls, those who get good copies love them for their reach.

As an example, at CYYT, where I primarily shoot, the 70-200mm is ample for the smaller airliners and hercs I mainly shoot, but it is really too short for the small stuff (biz jets and occasionally fighters) that come through here.

So, will the 70-200mm be long enough for you?

cheers

Mark

[jetsetkiwi]

I currently use the f/4 non IS..

It isnt really that sharp. Maybe I got a bad copy, but still its a really nice, lightweight lens. Unfortunently, 200mm isnt enough for me, so im attempting to sell it in place to get a 100-400!

[Tanner_J]

I used the f4 version before I got the 2.8 and absolutely loved the f4. Probably one of the best lenses for the price available. I upgraded to the 2.8 because I shoot a lot of weddings and low light situations. With the new technology available with High ISO and grain, f4 may be enough one day for those situations.

If you don't need the 2.8, the f4 is definitely an amazing lens.

BTW if you get a lens that you feel is not up to par, send it to Canon for calibration! If it's under warranty, you're stupid not to.

[PMN]

It isnt really that sharp. Maybe I got a bad copy

Maybe you do have a bad copy, although to be honest I find it difficult to believe a copy could be so bad as to produce soft results. I've used the 70-200 f/4 non-IS for around 10 months now and it's stunningly sharp. Four other people I know use it as well and produce consistently sharp results with theirs.

Perhaps, as Tanner_J suggests, sending it to Canon for calibration may be the best idea.

Paul

[B7772ADL]

I'm one of the world's number 1 100-400 haters and have used a 70-200 F2.8 L IS since getting rid of my 100-400, which as everyone says is a great lens. It does however not have the flexibility of the 100-400 (lacks range even with 1.4x attached) and i'm ever so slowly beginning to think about going back to a 100-400 as it is one of the most flexible lenses for aviation photography.

[PMN]

i'm ever so slowly beginning to think about going back to a 100-400 as it is one of the most flexible lenses for aviation photography.

There's something I never thought I'd see you write!

Paul

[Tanner_J]

I hate the 100-400 also, but then again I don't do much (if any) aviation photography. I've used one and it was ok. Not a big fan of the push pull. I'd rather just save up and get a 300 or 400 2.8.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

I hate the 100-400 also, but then again I don't do much (if any) aviation photography. I've used one and it was ok. Not a big fan of the push pull. I'd rather just save up and get a 300 or 400 2.8.

Same here.
I absolutly love my 70-200 2.8 and it fits 90% of my needs

[Cam]

No, I happen to be a Nikon user, but thanks for asking....

[PMN]

No, I happen to be a Nikon user, but thanks for asking....

There's always one who spoils it, isn't there?!

Paul

[B7772ADL]

There's something I never thought I'd see you write!

Paul

Indeed....i've not forgiven it totally and it's still flawed to hell and back (if i'd wanted to suck dust i'd have bought a Dyson), but at the end of the day it's flexible and the results from a good copy are fine.

Plus, I was looking back at some of my older favourite shots and I realised a majority of them are from using a 100-400.

[wrxflyer]

I had a 100-400 and a 70-200 non-IS together on holiday, including a few days for spottng in Greece, this year.
So I had the best chance to compare those two toplenses.

I had to make a choice between those two lenses and decide for the 70-200 f4; mostly for the weight and his pricetag.
Now, after 4 months,I doubt more and more if that was a good decision.
Next year I'll go for a 1.4 extender or go back to the 100-400.
I really miss that 200mm extra range!
For the qualityfactor only; the IS is something very useful. There've been situations I really missed it on my non-IS lens.

Freek

[mnazarinia]

It is exactly one year that I am using 70-200 f/4 non-IS. I bought it based on the recommendations of all the photographers and screeners in this forum. I am really happy about my decision. I also sometimes really feel I need the IS version or even the 200mm more! BUT as Alex mentioned it is also fits more than 90% of my needs. The quality, sharpness is perfect. I just wish I had the IS version and more 100 to 200mm range.

Cheers, Mehdi.