I’m currently looking at both of these lens. Mainly to shoot motorsport, panning and family portraits whilst out and about. I’d like to get away with the f4 to save around £700!
Thank you. Judging by portrait photos on Flickr, I'll opt for the 2.8, as it has much better microcontrast as revealed in the texture on faces - where the f/4 looks flatter and duller. I've seen comments by other pros who've made the same observation. Thankfully, the used prices of the 2.8s are inviting now.
Nice composition video. Just got a 70-200mm f2.8L (s3), magical lens. The f4 version wasn't in store so decided to spoil myself and spurge a bit. The new Sigma version was also tempting but the tripod ring on the Sigma is a bit annoying.
I came here to see the zoom capabilities of this lens and I find that it shows up as a fixed lens. It would have been important if at least one shot could be seen zooming in since I read in a review that it is a lens that behaves in a parafocal way. Thanks for the effort to make this video anyway.
if u put an extension tube on the F4 wil the autofocus keep working? with the F2.8 you get a 280mm F4 or a 400mm F5.6 with autofocus. how is that with the F4 version? or this works or not makes a big difference for me, since i even like to put on the 1.4 extender on my 300mm prime with some animals in the zoo. looking forward to your answer.
@@alexandrelongaray3987 confesso que não vejo mta diferença e nem necessidade urgente para o meu uso em fazer o update. Talvez eu opte por outra tele. Abraço
I've owned both and used them with my EOS R, long story short if you are going after image quality and sharpness then go with the 2.8 version if you don't mind the weight.
I've owned both of these lenses for a while, and although the f4 IS II is lighter, the look just isn't the same, its taken me 2 years of missing the 2.8, there's just something "romantic" about the look, the F4 just doesn't have it. The f4 is a great lens and is super light and fun to use, but the 2.8 is such a great well rounded lens. Either one will be sufficient for almost any photo.
@@trevorsowers2202 yes! I use the 2.8 when I know I need it, but refuse to carry it anymore with a kit of Zeiss primes. Had an f4 before and loved it until f2.8 love got me. I need to compare the f4 +135 f2 Zeiss weight vs a the 2.8. So far my conclusion is the 135 plus an rf100-400.
I know this is an older video, but I just came across it. I had the 2.8 version, but I never took it with me while traveling. I was big and heavy, so it stayed at home. I now have the f4 version, and it is very light weight, and I take it with me more than the 2.8.
I ammplanning a photography holiday to Frankfurt soon. Ill be sure to check out the bar....maybe buy you a drink for this very great video if i find you there...😜😜. Excellent video sir.
I was so proud of my precious 2.8 and then realized it was too heavy to carry around on casual trips. I thought I totally wasted my money until I got to use it for graduation pictures for my friends and recently, to take wedding pictures of me and my wife. Now it is gathering dust again... Nonetheless, I have no regrets.
Guardian Observer I seriously am. Iv even pixel peeped on my stills and really haven’t noticed any loss in the quality of its reproduction even at a micro contrast level and sharp bright light. As long as the images are optimally exposed. I own a 70-200 IS f2.8 version 1. It’s a tank. Now I really have no need for it.
Guardian Observer It’s permanently on my m50. 70-200 works amazing but you got to look at the EF135 f2. Jesus that lens in incredible especially when I can get it down to f1.4 I’m seriously low light conditions rather then f2.8.
If I were to buy one of these, now, they would be used on my 80d. But 80d has a significant limitation--Diffraction limiting aperture is 5.9. I have not beern able to find a graph showing image quality drop off beyond f/5.9. Now the mark 3 of the f/2.8 L is available, but I don't see a reason to spend more money for it. The f/4 version has 5 stops of image stabilization..I think the f/2.8 is only 3.5.
if you upgrade the camera to a full frame, you'd see definite improvement in image quality. i have a relatively cheap 6D Mark 2 and I'm quite happy with it - using it for video and photography. My walk-around lens is a Canon 35 mm f/2 IS USM, and I just ordered a 70-200 f/4 IS Version 2.
I don't think DFA is something we should really care about. The difference is extremely slim and most 70-200 lenses shines at f5.6 anyway. Post processing would take care of the rest. I don't think you would need more than 4 stops of IS while that 1 extra stop can be crucial to capture movement- you get 1/200s instead of 1/100s. The only issues is the weight- a f2.8 lens weight twice as much as its f4 cousin and boy- holding a camera with a 1,6kg 70-200 f2.8 lens for 3 hours can be really tiring.
Hallo, mich interessiert unterscheid zwischen Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM. Und Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Würden sie mir erklären? Gruß, Goran
huhu, kann ich dir nicht genau beantworten, weil ich die Mark III Version nicht habe und auch nie hatte. Ich nehme mal an, dass die MKIII Version deutlich schärfer ist und vielleicht etwas leichter geworden ist. Ich hatte Jahre lang die f/2.8 MK II Version und war super happy.
Ahh schau mal hier. Ist zwar kein Vergleich zwischen EF und EF, aber die MK III Version kannst du hier sehen: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q5UsmfarevQ.html
Something to bare in mind, the 70-200 2.8 ii is older, meaning there's plenty of refurbished and used ones on offer. The F4 ii hasn't had time to get old yet, I can't even find any refurbished or used ones. A used 2.8 costs the same and is a stop faster.
@@Spazza42 yep, wright, but usually who sell such a lens is heavely used , and sometimes with focus problems. From my side rather new , even expresiver
