Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS

[seths1]

Hello All! I’m mainly a portrait photographer but plan on doing a lot of landscapes in the near future. Figured I should buy my first telephoto lens, and was wondering if I should buy a used 70-200mm f/4 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. I would like the f/2.8 L IS II but it is a little out of my budget. Is the couple hundred dollar jump used worth it from the f/4 to f/2.8 L IS? Thanks!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Is the couple hundred dollar jump used worth it from the f/4 to f/2.8 L IS?"

To answer that question, IMHO, it is.  I have owned the f4 version and the f2.8 both IS models. The f2.8 is in every way the better lens choice. I sold my 70-200mm f4L with one of the 7D's I owned.  That person is happy with the combo, so there you are.

---

I can't disagree. I have no experience with the f/4 models; but I've used two copies of the f/2.8L IS II: one at work and the other I bought for myself when I retired. And I know of no lens that does a better job for its intended purpose. It even handles a 1.4x III teleconverter remarkably well (which probably can't be said for the f/4 versions).

I understand that there is an even better (smaller and lighter) version of the f/2.8 on the horizon, but you have to buy an R5 to use it effectively. Which is a subject for another thread.  

[ebiggs1]

" It even handles a 1.4x III teleconverter remarkably well ..."

One of the very few lenses I agree handles a tel-con nicely. 

[limvo05]

I would go with the f/2.8 mark ii as it is extremely sharp and built like a tank. I used it as a dumbbell LOL. The combined weight of the lens and camera body 5Ds provides sufficient weight for poor man gym equipment.