Which Canon EF 70-200?

Canon users have four (4) choices for a 70-200 zoom, all of them Canon’s best “L” glass (see prices at amazon.com). The choices include:

• 70-200 f/2.8L, about $1170, 1310g
• 70-200 f/2.8L IS, about $1450, 1470g
• 70-200 f/4L, about $590, 705g
• 70-200 f/4L IS, about $1050, 760g

How does one choose? First, decide if you will be using the lens handheld. If so, choose an “IS” (image stabilized) version, as that greatly increases the usability under low-light conditions. If you don’t need image stabilization, the non-IS versions are cheaper, and in theory could offer slightly better image quality (higher contrast) , because they have fewer lens elements (4 for the f/4, and 5 for the f/2.8). But a look at the MTF charts for the f/2.8 versions suggest that the "IS" version is a better lens, in spite of having more elements.

Next, consider weight. I was shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS today, and it’s an obnoxiously heavy lens, no fun at all to shoot with for very long. If you don’t need f/2.8, consider the f/4 version. It’s much friendlier to one’s arms and neck, and its smaller diameter feels much nicer.

Finally, price is always a concern. At first glance, the 70-200 f/4L IS sounds good, but adding in the optional $150 tripod collar (included with the f/2.8L IS), the price jumps to about $1200, not much less than the f/2.8L IS version. For $250 (20% more), one gains an entire stop, making the f/2.8 version significantly more flexible, and with a brighter viewfinder image.

In short, it’s not an easy decision. But for a carry-around lens for handheld shooting, the f/4L IS is the only game in town. I don’t have one, but I might get one at some point, because the bulk and weight of the f/2.8L IS dissuades me from taking it on a regular basis. If a lens goes unused, it’s a poor investment!