Canon 70-200mm

[Reef Pets]

I am interested in purchasing a nice Canon lens and from what I have found the Canon 70-200 would work great for my needs.
My question is if there is a huge difference between the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM & 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM?
I realize that the F stop is different but curious to know if the auto focus is slower on the f/4 or anything else that might be comparable?
The price difference is huge between the two and if the only difference is the Aperture then I believe the f/4L would be just fine.
On the other hand I realize that photography can be like reef keeping, purchasing the proper equipment the fist time will save a lot of money in the long run.
If anyone has or has used this lens any advise would be appreciated.

The other question would be if there is another name brand that has the same lens and quality of the Canon 70-200?

 

[clowns101]

I have the 70-200 4L USM and it is awesome! Im just borrowing it for now send me a pm and I'll send you a link to some of the football pictures I've takin.

Don't get the IS version, get the 4L non IS version!

 

[m and m]

The 2.8 is faster IMO and I do have one used I would let go if you wanted it.

 

[Reef Pets]

Thanks guys! Im interested in seeing the photos.
PM on the way to both of you.

 

[WWC]

The 2.8 not only lets in more light. It is also faster with Auto Focusing. I like having IS (VR on Nikon). It is great especially when shooting in lower light. it also really depends on your needs. :wink:

 

[kuyatwo]

Gary look for canon 80-200L 2.8 you might pick one up used. It is a great lens. It is nicknamed magic drainpipe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nixer]

i like the IS also. i dont always shoot with a tripod

 

[WWC]

What will you use this lens for? Family? Events?

 

[m and m]

I feel the 2.8 has better contrast too.

 

[flyfish4trout]

I have the f4 and its a great lens, particularly for high light conditions. I wish I would have saved and waited to get the 2.8, it is a much more versatile lens but it weighs a ton more.

 

[jlt23]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 II which I love, but it is a bit heavy. I heard the version one is not that great. The 70-200 f4IS is supposed to be really sharp too and a lot lighter.

 

[nixer]

we see so many up close shots with the 100 2.8 IS usm how about a few non coral shots. all taken without tripod or any fancy settings.

 

[m and m]

A wine shoot I did all with a 70-200L 2.8 IS


LT4D9398 by matsinger2, on Flickr

LT4D9372 by matsinger2, on Flickr

LT4D9352 by matsinger2, on Flickr

 

[spsgtr]

i own both F4 IS and 2.8 IS II. Image quality between the two are tack sharp and almost equivalent and autofocus is great for both. obviously the 2.8 will let you shoot in more dim situations (indoor) but if you're using it for outdoor situations the f4 is will be fine.
on long hikes and long days, i prefer the F4 IS. It is MUCH lighter and your back or neck will thank you for it. HTH.

 

[gar732]

Hey Gary, what did you end up going with? I've been looking at the 70-200 f/4 l non is, just wondering how you like what you got.