EF 70-200 comparison: f2.8 III vs. f4 II

[ikassi]

I’m looking to buy an EF 70-200 lens and comparing specs. The image quality between the two appears to be nearly identical. Obviously, the difference in one stop of light can make a huge difference in low light. But I was looking at the f4 and the rest of its specs seem more impressive than the f2.8: https://vidmate.bid/

It’s half the weight, and smaller overall in size.

5 stops of stabilization, compared to the f2.8’s 3.5 stops

3 stabilization modes instead of 2

I have conflicting information on this one, but according to Canon’s announcement video, it has 9 aperture blades instead of 8.

Shorter minimum focusing distance

From the numerous posts I’ve read about these two, it seems like the f-stop is the only considering most people care about so the 2.8 is what I’m more inclined to go with, even though the f4 seems like a very good buy. Do the other specs not really matter? Specifically, I’m wondering whether the additional IS stops would allow for slower shutter speeds in low light?

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I believe there are 7 variants of the EF 70-200 f4 and f2.8.

Make sure you are comparing like versions.

f/4L USM

 f/4L IS USM

f/4L IS II USM

f/2.8L USM

f/2.8L IS USM 

f/2.8L IS II USM

f/2.8L IS III USM

The number is apertures blades 8 vs 9 on a f4 variant doesn't matter.  You might see a slight difference (rounder edges of boken balls) at 2.8 when wide open.  It's not discernable at f4 and above.  Not something you'd need to worry about.  

2 vs 3 stabilization modes.  The 3rd mode basically keeps IS from running continuously, so it only activates when exposure occurs.  This mode provides more stability of the image you see in the viewfinder when panning. 

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome:
I had the EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS USM MkII and the 70-200L f/4 IS USM MkII.  They are both fabulous optics.   I sold the f/2.8 variant because I didn't like the weight and really didn't need the difference in f/stop.  I have used it without issue and got beautiful images with it on both DSLR and MILC cameras.

[ebiggs1]

"Obviously, the difference in one stop of light can make a huge difference in low light."

One stop is not  a "huge difference" in low light conditions. Of course, it has a small advantage but hardly huge. If that is what you are basing your decision on, you are barking up the wrong spec. Size, weight and price are far more important.

[Ron888]

The f4's 1.5 stops stabilization more than makes up for the 2.8's 1 stop aperture advantage,so the only big difference optically is depth of field.
My amateur photographer experience for what it's worth: When i look at my best pictures i see very few that wouldnt work at f4.At the long end f2.8 isnt doing much!At shorter focal lengths f2.8 is more useful but not a huge deal.
Do you happen to have (or plan to buy) any fast lenses that would overlap the wide end of 70-200mm? If so it would make financial sense to get the 70-200/4 and let those other lenses do the shallow depth of field work.Just thought i'd add that in case

[p4pictures]

One other factor is what camera will you use? Most DSLR cameras have higher precision AF points that are used when an f/2.8 lens or fast is used. This can be just the centre point, or several others around the centre depending on the DSLR.

Regardless of the light levels you shoot in AF sensors in DSLRs and mirrorless work better when more light enters the camera. You get more light with the f/2.8 aperture - 2x as much light.

[ebiggs1]

The point made was ...

"... the difference in one stop of light can make a huge difference in low light."

... and in that situation one stop is not that huge factor that so many folks seem to think. But, yes, the f2.8L lens is the better lens overall. It gets better stuff overall and part of the reason it costs so much more. Still the point is if you are debating whether one stop is a real benefit for low light conditions the answer remains it is not a "huge" deal.

Choosing raw over jpg is a bigger option.