I'm considering buying either a 70-200mm canon L series lens and can't decide which would be better, the f4 or the f2.8. Can't afford the new IS 2.8 version. Do both lenses have a flurite element? My understanding is that only the f4 has this. Probably don't need 2.8 capacity...can make one stop up with film choices, but if the lens quality of the 2.8 is superior would pay the extra cash to get it but could do without the extra weight if the lens quality was about the same. Is the USM system the same in both lenses? Any views please?

-- Lex Bowden (lex.bowden@vicpointss.qld.edu.au), May 21, 2002

Answers

In photo.net's canon reviews section, phil greenspun has a comparison of the 2.8, 4, and 2.8IS with the advantages and disadvantages of each.

http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200

-- peter bg (pbartzgallag@macalester.edu), May 21, 2002.

If picture quality is your primary concern over speed you would not be dissapointed with the 70-200f4L. The performance of this lens is identical to the higher priced f2.8. JC

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Hi Lex,

just sold my EF 2,8/70-00 L because it was too heavy for travel. Before that I made comparison shots against my new EF 4.0/70-200L. I can tell you, that the 4.0 is at least as good, as the 2.8 ! At 135 mm the 4.0 is better. Only at 200 mm the 2.8 is marginal better. The 2.8 version has 4 UD-lenses, where the 4.0 has 1 fluorite plus 2 UD lenses. One fluorite is to compare with 2 UD's. Also with 2x Converter I got very good sharpness with the 4.0 and my EOS 3. AF then works at f8 only with EOS 1 V and EOS 3 and its central AF sensor.

Best Regards from Germany Rainer

-- R. Krönke (Rainer.Kroenke@T-Online.de), May 22, 2002.

The biggest advantage of the f/2.8 over the f/4 lens is found when you use Canon extenders. Both lenses apparently give good optical performance with extenders but the f/2.8 lens' speed makes it more versatile.

The f/2.8 weighs 3 pounds. I find it to be on the heavy side but one should consider that with the addition of a 1.4x and 2x extender you preclude the need to carry several other focal length lenses. It seems like a lot lighter overall bag weight.

I've had the 70-200/2.8L for a couple of years and it is the most used lens I own, with or without extenders. The more I use this lens, the more respect I have for it.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), May 24, 2002.

For me too the 2.8 IS was out of the question (budget) so I bought the 4. However, 200 mm at f/4 is a bit limiting when light gets low. So I sold it and bought the 2.8 IS. The 2.8 was never an option for me.

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 26, 2002.

Optical quality is the same on both lenses. If you'll be doing a lot of low-light shooting get the f/2.8 version. If you're on a budget and want to travel light get the f/4 version. Still waiting for my f/4 lens though as it is in back-order :(

-- B. Billedo (bbilledo@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.