- This topic is empty.
Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS and F4 versions
-
Is there much difference between the first F2.8 and the mark 2 apart from the 1 extra stop for image stabilisation? Picture quality wise etc as I cannot afford the mark 2 but could possibly stretch to the 1st version second hand. I am looking for a good zoom for birds/wildlife that can be mainly handheld and found the Bigma way too heavy. I need IS as I dont have the steadiest of hands and found after playing with the F2.8 I actually got some great shots without trying.
The f4 version is definately within my budget and good shots but would like a slightly faster lense as it will be quite some time before my husband recovers from this spend lol :DThese both stood out for me as I have the option of using a 1.4/ 2 x converter.
:) thanks
16 views and no replies…. were are you all with your wealth of experience ;o)
I haven’t used the f.2,8 II. But, I’ve talked to those who have it.
The MkII is superior to the older model. A bit lighter but brighter and better AF.
The F/4 is a brilliant lens, but suffers a bit in darker conditions.
When shooting wildlife, unless they’re sitting still, you shouldn’t need IS at all. You should be shooting with a fast shutter speed. Obviously, when they’re sitting still, you can use a much slower shutter speed and use IS.
So, as to what you should buy … if you’ve got good light – f/4 is fine.
thanks very much Paul, appreciate the info. I think I will go for the F4 then and if in the future require more then revisit the F2.8. Still too much of a beginner to justify the mark 2 :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
