Has anyone had any experience with BOTH of these lenses......

I've been trying to decide whether to buy the f4 or "go that bit extra" for the f2.8. It's a pretty big jump (that I could use towards a nice macro lens in the future), but wondered what others thought.......

I've been looking at some detailed comparisons, and it actually seems the f4 is a little sharper! Obviously you'd gain in lower light and being able to blur the background even more but.......

....is it worth that extra chuck of money?! :wonder:

Any thoughts gratefully received!

I have not tried the F4 but I recently purchased the f2.8 and I think its worth every penny. An amazing bit of kit.

And im still waiting for the right f4 to turn up :D

I have the f4 non IS and its been a reliable workhorse as a rally lens. I think you'll be happy with which ever one suits your budget. Just remember f2.8 is a lot bigger \ heavier than f4.

Yes indeedy.......I can imagine keeping the f4 on the body most of the time whereas the f2.8 might be a little bit of a pain to lug around!

What's surprised me is the f4 seems just a little sharper.....

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2)


And it's the same filter size as my 17-85 IS!

And the f4 is £500 cheaper, which could go nicely towards my macro......

Does it sound like I've made my mind up???? :wonder:

I just bought the F4 Non-IS as its a decent size. I only have the 17-55 kit lens to compare so of course Im gonna be happy with it. Focus speed is lightning fast and silent and no moving parts when zooming to get dirt etc in.

I was sat next to a guy at Windsor Horse Show who had a massive white L lens and I didnt realise til I checked that it was the F2.8 version - its a lot lot bigger.

As for the price the F4 can be had for £340 and the 2.8 (both non-IS) for £700 less cashback (£40 and £45 respectively I believe). If your looking at the IS then your talking another £200 on top.

For me it was a no brainer on cost as I only spent £250 on my 350D kit (2nd hand) so £300 for a first lens was already pushing it.

Read some of the many threads over on POTN as there are a few. People seem to have more issues with the 2.8 from what Ive read.

Simon

you mean the IS would compensate the f/4 a stop to f/2.8?

You wouldn't get the same creamy bokeh as the 2.8 but for nailing a sharp image, the F/4 with IS would be more than fine.

what psl said ;)

The question is, how often do you need a fast zoom? I have had the F4 for three years have thought about the F2.8 and realised that I would really never need what it has over the F4...and yes they are both sharp. If you are keen on indoor or night sports, then it is probably worth it.

f2.8 would be great in low light conditions - better focussing as this is done wide open. Twice the light passes at f2.8 than at f4.0

f4 IS would give a stable image but you would still need a slower shutter speed than at f2.8 and this could show in your photos - blurred hands etc.,

Its all a compromise, you just need to choose which is best for you, your shoulder and neck, and your wallet.

Tricky choice ;) But do you NEED f/2.8 - that's the decision. Both are amongst Canon's finest optically and both superbly made. The f/4 obviously a lot smaller and lighter.


I've only used the 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) seriously but the IS version would be my choice, given that I've used the f/2.8 version briefly, it's a big bugger and a pain unless you need the extra aperture.

In the end, I opted for the 100-400mm L simply for reach, but you can get close to that with an Extender and not lose much.

The Canon Extender is best, but my Kenko comes damn close (especially on cropped format - I could hardly tell the difference in two days of comparisons) and also works on a lot more lenses because it is much smaller. Like my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, which is a favourite combo for me right now :)

My choice, 70-200mm f/4 IS plus Kenko Pro telecon (£100).

Richard.

Thank you everyone.......I think putting my mind at rest more than anything else!:notworthy

I agree with Hoppy.......70-200 f4 IS is what I'll get. Just have to decide on the extender now....:wonder:

The comparison thingy that's on "The Digital Picture" site is fantastic......and certainly eye-opening! I was shocked at the clarity of the f4 IS against most other lenses!

So, I guess it's time to order one - from the States probably as I'm off over there to visit family in a week or so!

Yippee!

Just have to decide on the macro next......hmmm.......

Tricky choice ;) But do you NEED f/2.8 - that's the decision. Both are amongst Canon's finest optically and both superbly made. The f/4 obviously a lot smaller and lighter.


I've only used the 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) seriously but the IS version would be my choice, given that I've used the f/2.8 version briefly, it's a big bugger and a pain unless you need the extra aperture.

In the end, I opted for the 100-400mm L simply for reach, but you can get close to that with an Extender and not lose much.

The Canon Extender is best, but my Kenko comes damn close (especially on cropped format - I could hardly tell the difference in two days of comparisons) and also works on a lot more lenses because it is much smaller. Like my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, which is a favourite combo for me right now :)

My choice, 70-200mm f/4 IS plus Kenko Pro telecon (£100).

Richard.


Hoppy...

I had planned on the Canon 1.4x extender.....but now you throw that one in! I've always streered away from non-Canon stuff in the past...but.....you think there's not much in it on this one????

I've just noticd that they are compatible with most of the Canon lenses rather than JUST the L series.....so maybe that's anothr big plus-point!

So, Canon....or Kenko....bearing in mind I can get the Canon for a lot less over in the States soon!???

Hoppy...

I had planned on the Canon 1.4x extender.....but now you throw that one in! I've always streered away from non-Canon stuff in the past...but.....you think there's not much in it on this one????

I've just noticd that they are compatible with most of the Canon lenses rather than JUST the L series.....so maybe that's anothr big plus-point!

So, Canon....or Kenko....bearing in mind I can get the Canon for a lot less over in the States soon!???

Ha ha!. If you want the best Extender, then the Canon has the edge, literally :D

The Canon Extender is built to fit Canon L lenses on full-frame and if that is what I was using, there'd be no choice but Canon. But I'm not, so I use Kenko.

However, the Canon Extender is big and expensive. If I was a full-frame user, eg 5D, then I would have kept the Canon. But I use a cropped 40D and frankly there is nothing to choose between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x, plus it fits other lenses because of the smaller physical size, eg 100mm f/2.8 macro which then becomes a 140mm f/4. Great combo. I think it is the Kenko 300 Pro, and Tamron market an identical model but I can't check exact details because Charley Whiskey has my Kenko TC on loan at the mo. His findings will be worth the wait, however, so no probs there ;)

Just a final note - there are lots of TCs out there. Some are dire. Check their make and model carefully before buying.

Richard.

Ha ha!. If you want the best Extender, then the Canon has the edge, literally :D

The Canon Extender is built to fit Canon L lenses on full-frame and if that is what I was using, there'd be no choice but Canon. But I'm not, so I use Kenko.

However, the Canon Extender is big and expensive. If I was a full-frame user, eg 5D, then I would have kept the Canon. But I use a cropped 40D and frankly there is nothing to choose between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x, plus it fits other lenses because of the smaller physical size, eg 100mm f/2.8 macro which then becomes a 140mm f/4. Great combo. I think it is the Kenko 300 Pro, and Tamron market an identical model but I can't check exact details because Charley Whiskey has my Kenko TC on loan at the mo. His findings will be worth the wait, however, so no probs there ;)

Just a final note - there are lots of TCs out there. Some are dire. Check their make and model carefully before buying.

Richard.

Hi Richard,

I'm afraid I've only got a 400D (and a G9) on the digital front (old Canons and a Leica on the film front though).....although eagerly awaiting official news on the replacement to the 5D ;)

I really like the fact it will probably work on more than just my 70-200 f4 IS though....not sure how many other lenses I'd WANT to put it on, but hey!

I think the Kenko is about $190 whereas the Canon is $290..so a fair difference......so, money saved on the 70-200 f2.8 AND the Canon 1.4x might mean the macro will be sooner rather than later!

I agree on the dire quality of others "doublers" and the like. I had the misfortune of borrowing one some years ago.....BIG mistake!

OK....so....finally.....I think my mind is made up......70-200 f4 IS and a Kenko Pro 300....sounds like a plan!

Thanks! Mike

Will the Kenko still allow the IS and AF functions of the canon lens to work. Following advice from the forum, thanks Richard et al, I bought the 70-300 IS and am very pleased with it. I am interested in wildlife shots and so want an extender. 1.4X would be nice but 2X would be better, I am guessing that the 2X would cause image degradation?
Alex

The Canon extenders won't work with the 70-300 anyway, so you'll have to go third party. This isn't a bad thing, however, as nearly all third party convertors still allow the AF and IS to work.

Limit yourself to the 1.4x though as the 2x will not only cause image degradation but will give you a horrendously dark viewfinder. :)

Thanks for that, so the kenko 1.4 X will work then?

Yes! :)

dpreview just placed a pretty deep review of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM.
Just posted! Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens review: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051602canon70200review.asp)

I use this lens already since Autumn 2002 and am still as happy with this lens as on the day, I bought it. I could most of the time live without the IS but the lens speed at F2.8 is what I was after. Just be prepared, this lens is heavy. I don't know the F4 L version without IS, but heard that it is also a great lens.

Has anyone had any experience with BOTH of these lenses......

I've been trying to decide whether to buy the f4 or "go that bit extra" for the f2.8. It's a pretty big jump (that I could use towards a nice macro lens in the future), but wondered what others thought.......

I've been looking at some detailed comparisons, and it actually seems the f4 is a little sharper! Obviously you'd gain in lower light and being able to blur the background even more but.......

....is it worth that extra chuck of money?! :wonder:

Any thoughts gratefully received!

Going to go against the grain a bit here as a long term 70-200F4 user.

If you are going for the F4, then I'd definately go for the IS version.

But if I was doing it again, I'd go for the F2.8IS. In reality, sharpness differences are negligable, its faster, obviously, which means more accurate cross type focus than the F4 on all bar the 1 Series bodies, and for moving objects (where IS is of no value) and / or you need a higher shutter speed in lower light without compromising on the ISO rating, that extra stop may well make all the difference.

Incidentally, I've not used the 70-200 F4 (at all) since getting the 100-400.

I have steered away from IS Lenses partly due to the cost and probably 99% of the things I shoot are moving, so pretty pointless

If you ever think of selling the 70-200 DD ;)

If you ever think of selling the 70-200 DD ;)

I'll let you know :)

Mrs DD has laid claim at the moment though :lol1:

:lol1:

I have to get Donna to agree to let me have one too :D

[QUOTE=Sonic';7885982]I have steered away from IS Lenses partly due to the cost and probably 99% of the things I shoot are moving, so pretty pointless QUOTE]

On the 70-200 f2.8 IS version you have 2 stabilization settings. 1st is for general stabilizations and the 2nd setting is for 'dragging' the camera. Especially the dragging feature is great for motorsport photography if you want to blur the backgroud to show speed in your pictures.

[QUOTE=Sonic';7885982]I have steered away from IS Lenses partly due to the cost and probably 99% of the things I shoot are moving, so pretty pointless QUOTE]

On the 70-200 f2.8 IS version you have 2 stabilization settings. 1st is for general stabilizations and the 2nd setting is for 'dragging' the camera. Especially the dragging feature is great for motorsport photography if you want to blur the backgroud to show speed in your pictures.

Agreed that the panning mode 2 helps in those circumstances, but there are lots of things that don't move in a straight line.

Add to that the slight delay for the elements to stabilise, and you could have lost the shot.

However, its a feature I wouldn't be without on a longer lens :thumb:

Well, I've just ordered the 70-200 f4 IS.....and for once, my procrastination has paid off......it's now $75 cheaper! :norty:

Couldn't really justify the extra for the f2.8 and the money saved has gone to the 100mm macro!

So, lens ordered, Kenko 1.4x ordered, Lowepro lens case ordered.......

Thanks everyone for your comments!


Now......$200 off the 40D at the moment.......God, I'm being tempted at every turn!

Dont forget Canon Europe - For Home (http://canonlensacc2008.onlinerebates.com/howtoclaim.aspx)

Dont forget Canon Europe - For Home (http://canonlensacc2008.onlinerebates.com/howtoclaim.aspx)

Unfortunately (as much as I wish they would) I doubt I'll get the cashback twice! The $75 off in the States is an "instant rebate".......

....of course, it might be worth a try! :norty:

Hi Guys

Am trying to get a F2,8 Is aswell just now, but the good deals from America dont seem to deliver up here to Scotland, do you have site or suppliers that deliver to the Uk?

Cheers Dougie

Have you tried Kerso on ebay, he is in Scotland and usually competetivly priced