70-200mm f4L IS vs. 70-200mm f2.8L non IS?

[markmullen]

14-7 said:

markmullen said:

One to think about is the F4 IS is weather sealed, the non IS 2.8 (or non IS 4 for that matter) isn't weathersealed, as such I went for the F4IS.

Aren't all 'L' series lenses weatherproofed?

No.

Only the IS versions of the 70-200 f2.8 or f4 are weather sealed.

Some of the others are, some aren't.

One list I could find;

list on another forum said:

Weather sealed (note that all non-super telephotos require a filter for full sealing):

Zooms: 16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 28-300

Primes: 14mm f2.8 II, 24 f1.4 II, 50 1.2, 100 f2.8 IS, 300 f2.8 IS , 400 f2.8 IS, 400 f4 DO, 500 f4, 600 f4, 800 f5.6

The following are not weather sealed:

Zooms: 100-400, 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8

primes: 35 f1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 f2, 180 f3.5, 200 f2.8, 300 f4 IS, 400 F5.6

Edited by markmullen on Monday 18th October 12:31

[S47]

Weather proofing is one thing, but how many photo's do you actually see in print showing the nice rain falling??
Not too many methinks
Another point the F2.8 70-200 zooms are oh soo soft at 200mm - makes me think they have vaseline smeared on the lens
Of course the new Mk2 F2.8 ain't bad for sharpness at 200mm, but the Cheapo BLACK standard 200mm F2.8 'L' prime still makes the new zoom look pretty awful IMO
Guess you pays your money.
Me - I'd still buy the bog standard F4 70-200 non 'IS'

Edited by S47 on Monday 18th October 15:15

[itsnotarace]

S47 said:

Weather proofing is one thing, but how many photo's do you actually see in print showing the nice rain falling??
Not too many methinks

Plenty of people shoot in all conditions. Had 26mm of rain on my last job, pissed down all day

[markmullen]

S47 said:

Weather proofing is one thing, but how many photo's do you actually see in print showing the nice rain falling??
Not too many methinks

I got mine for the RallyGB in Wales in November where I will put good money on it chucking down (it has every time I've been!).

[RobDickinson]

S47 said:

Of course the new Mk2 F2.8 ain't bad for sharpness at 200mm, but the Cheapo BLACK standard 200mm F2.8 'L' prime still makes the new zoom look pretty awful IMO

Friend just tradwed in hus 200/2.8 and 100-400L for a 70-200f2.8IS mkII and loves it...

[XG332]

I went with this version.

[Chicken Pox]

XG332 said:

I went with this version.

where did you get that from, need to give the mrs some ideas for christmas and that would be perfect for work too

[XG332]

Chicken Pox said:

XG332 said:

I went with this version.

where did you get that from, need to give the mrs some ideas for christmas and that would be perfect for work too

Ebay actually, because they are rather hard to get hold of.
Supposedly Canon made a load and gave them out at the winter olympics. They are so popular that there are fakes.
Canons one doesnt have switches, removable rear cap and has a hole for drinking in the lid.

[Chicken Pox]

XG332 said:

Chicken Pox said:

XG332 said:

I went with this version.

where did you get that from, need to give the mrs some ideas for christmas and that would be perfect for work too

Ebay actually, because they are rather hard to get hold of.
Supposedly Canon made a load and gave them out at the winter olympics. They are so popular that there are fakes.
Canons one doesnt have switches, removable rear cap and has a hole for drinking in the lid.

will keep an eye out, thanks

[flat-planedCrank]

XG332 said:

I went with this version.

Should have gone with the f4 IS to help with the caffeine jitters?

[robz]

Really Glad to have found this post, i was just about to post up a near identical one!

I'm looking at the 70-200 L f2.8 (Non IS) for automotive photography, where more often than not, it'll be sat atop a tripod.

For a near double increase in price to the IS version (And MkII) , Would i really see a massive increase in image quality? At either end...

Does anyone have any comparison pics, or have you owned/used both ? It'd be interesting to hear the thoughts of someone with experience of both lenses.

-Rob.

[itsnotarace]

You don't need IS on a tripod.

Basically, if you are making money from photography then buy the 2.8 IS version. If not, buy the F4 or the F2.8 if you've got cash to burn

[robz]

itsnotarace said:

You don't need IS on a tripod.

Basically, if you are making money from photography then buy the 2.8 IS version. If not, buy the F4 or the F2.8 if you've got cash to burn

Thanks, i think that sums it up perfectly :-)

[RobDickinson]

Also consider the new Sigma 70-200OS.

Its opticaly as good ( better at the short end, better center at the long end poorer corners) as the old canon 70-200f2.8IS but 2/3rds of the price - no weathersealing though - but the non IS canons dont have that anyhow which are comparable in price.