Canon 70-200 l series IS f4 vs f2.8?? Help!! I have read countless reviews on the IS f4 vs f2.8 regarding their strenths and weaknesses. My distance use will be kids programs, sports indoors and outdoors. My concern is the f2.8 doesn't have a good as picture as the f4 version. Is this the case? What would you recommend? Canon 70-200 l series IS f4 vs f2.8?? Help!! I have read countless reviews on the IS f4 vs f2.8 regarding their strenths and weaknesses. My distance use will be kids programs, sports indoors and... » Read More Canon 70-200 l series IS f4 vs f2.8?? Help!! I have read countless reviews on the IS f4 vs f2.8 regarding their strenths and weaknesses. My distance use will be kids programs, sports indoors and outdoors. My concern is the f2.8 doesn't have a good as picture as the f4 version. Is this the case? What would you recommend? « Show Less
1789042
For indoor sports, the extra stop the f2.8 provides could mean the difference between a blurry image (or noisier at a higher ISO) and a very good one. As noted, IS won't help freeze action so you might find the wider aperture more useful for your purposes. The larger f2.8 isn't quite as easy to tote around as the f4 though.
1789043
Just think of the IS as a "portable tripod" since that is really what it does. It stops YOUR movement and allows hand-holding for shots at slower shutter speeds. What it won't do is stop the action of kids (or anything) that the camera is aimed at. For that you need a faster shutter speed which is in turn allowed by a larger maximum aperture. In general, aperture trumps IS in my opinion. I am not sure what is meant by "My concern is the f2.8 doesn't have a good as picture as the f4 version." Both lenses are well designed and crafted and can give sharp, high-quality pictures. Just think of the IS as a "portable tripod" since that is really what it does. It stops YOUR movement and allows hand-holding for shots at slower shutter speeds. What it won't do is stop the action of kids (or anything) that the camera is aimed at. For that you need a faster shutter speed which is in turn allowed by a larger maximum aperture. In general, aperture trumps IS in my opinion. I am not sure what is meant by "My concern is the f2.8 doesn't have a good as picture as the f4 version." Both lenses are well designed and crafted and can give sharp, high-quality... » Read More Just think of the IS as a "portable tripod" since that is really what it does. It stops YOUR movement and allows hand-holding for shots at slower shutter speeds. What it won't do is stop the action of kids (or anything) that the camera is aimed at. For that you need a faster shutter speed which is in turn allowed by a larger maximum aperture. In general, aperture trumps IS in my opinion. I am not sure what is meant by "My concern is the f2.8 doesn't have a good as picture as the f4 version." Both lenses are well designed and crafted and can give sharp, high-quality pictures. « Show Less
956775
I shoot with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 for alot of stuff (I do tons of dance performance photography). The higher price tag on the 2.8 is totally worth it. Plus the larger aperture will allow you limit your depth of field making action shots pop where you really want them. If you are going to invest in a good lens, just go for the best and buy one time.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
483539
The newer version has the IS (image stabilization). The description will say Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. This is the newer lens priced at approx. $2300.00. The older, non-IS version is about $1450.00
678607
I use the 2.8 and have never been concerned about the weight. I used this lens on my Canon 5D with the extender 1.4 for a two hour whale watch trip from a boat, hand held. I didn't find it a concern. I'm a 5' 11", 200 lb man and 70 years old. I'm saying go for the f/2.8, you won't regret it.
1316303
Having never used the 300 F4 L, I can't compare. For sure you would be giving up one f stop. However, the 70-200 IS L F4 is considered one of the best zooms Canon makes, and I did compare the 70-200L with and without the 1.4 extender. Without the extender on the 70-200L it was close, but at max zoom on the monitor, the 70-300L was sharper and had better color saturation. With the extender, it was no contest, the 70-300L is way better. Hope this helps.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1418334
i would say the major difference in price is because of the build quality..i have used this dslr kit and i was really happy with everything..and the canon 70-200 should fitas you have a lot of space to move your camera body back and forth.
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
678604
The f4 is a super good all around lens and pretty nice for wildlife etc. More of an outdoor lens. If you're more indoor, portrait, etc, go for the 2.8. It is much larger however. I went with the f4 first because it gives more range of use.
1273280
I used to own both these lenses, but sold the 200 f/2.8L. They are very similar lenses. The 200L is, in my opinion, superior if your goal is landscape photography. For all other uses, I'd recommend the 135L. Portraits are easier in small spaces at the shorter focal length. Events are easier since the shorter length and faster aperture equate to much lower-light capability. Ergonomically, the lenses are practically identical. The 200L accepts a tripod ring, which I doubt you'll ever use. Either way, you're not going to make a wrong decision.
391685
I noticed that the SD 960 actually has a faster lens than the SX 200, but I much prefer the beefier body styling and extra zoom on the SX 200. I just wonder how much a difference F/3.4 compared to a F/2.8 in a compact camera like this would really make? I've also been thinking about picking up the LX3, but hearing you say you would trade in makes me wonder, have you found the F/2.0 lense to be a big difference compared to other compacts?
1130013
Your pocket should answer this question mainly.. I had f4 before getting the f2.8. For me , I love the 2.8 even though it is very expensive than the f4.The only thing I miss is the handy size of the f4....would not like take the the 2.8 when I go out to park with the children......
2041778
There are a couple of differences, but the real question is what are your needs as a photographer? I'm guessing that since you are asking what the differences are between these lenses, your needs are not of the professional nature, but I don't want to assume. The F1.2 is a pro lens. It is a stop faster, has sharper optics, manual focus override with just a twist of the lens, and from what I've heard nicer bokeh. Generally Canon puts everything it has into its "L" lenses. Better optics, build quality, and finish. I do not own the F1.2. I don't need it. To quote a friend of mine that shoots models all day in L.A., "If someone hadn't stolen my F1.4, I would not have purchased the F1.2". For someone who shoots portrait and magazine covers all day and makes a living at it, the subtle differences of the F1.2 are worth the extra money. For someone like me, who shoots portraits on occasion or shots for web sites etc., the F1.4 is a wonderful lens. It's very fast, handles well, and produces great photos. Not to discount the F1.2; it is an amazing lens and if money were no object of course I would own it. Hope this helps. Happy shooting!
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
382296
if your camera model has a better sensor that handles high ISO's well (i.e. little noise) the 70-200 F4 is fantastic ... I kept my F2.8 ( fantastic lens but much heavier plus mines an older version W/VR1) but never use any more as the F4 coupled with a D800 is a great combo
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.
2041779
There is at least one good comparison of the two lenses on youtube. Check out the videos and determine for yourself which lens fits your needs better. The f/1.4 is my first non-L lens; the add'l cost and weight made the f/1.2 less of a good fit for me.