Image quality Canon 70-200 2.8 vs. 4.0

I have the 70-200 2.8 non-IS version. It is a great sharp lens, but I never shoot it wide open. Since it is 2.8, it is fairly big and heavy. Has anyone compared the image quality of the 2.8 to the non-IS version of the 4.0? (I shoot landscapes, so I don't need the IS). I am considering switching to the 4.0 to lighten the load.

With a 1.4 TC, is the 4.0 plenty bright enough for manual focusing in low light?

Harley, I haven't shot with the f2.8 version, but I can tell you that my 70-200 f4 non-IS lens is the sharpest lens in my arsenal. I found the sweet spot to be around f8, but I'm comfortable stopping it down when needed. I often use the 1.4X converter, and the image quality is still excellent. And it's definitely bright enough for manual focus, should you need it.

A tripod collar doesn't come with it, but costs an extra $100 or so. I've never felt the need to use one, it's not a heavy lens at all.

I owned 70-200/4L non IS and it is one of the best lense imo.

You may want to check www.photozone.de -> reviews. If I remember correctly, the 70-200/4 IS is one of Klaus' favorites.

Basil

When I bought my 70-200 f 4L non-IS, I compared it to the f 2.8L non-IS and I thought the f 4L was a bit sharper. I am extremely pleased with the images from my 70-200 f 4L.

I don't think there is much of a difference. The difference is the wider opening and the IS, not the lens optical quality. They are both excellent in that regard. I personally use the f4 because it is smaller and lighter. Since I use a tripod for most of my work I don't need the IS or the 2.8 opening. The smaller lens means I have less weight to carry and can put more equipment in my bag, for no loss of image quality.

All I can say is this; I purchase the 70-200 f2.8L IS with a 1.4 Ext, plus a 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS and I've been very happy, if not completely satisfied with both. I've carried both, not together, in the field, and had no problem weight wise, and I mean for hours on end.

The 2.8 IS is meat and potatoes for a wedding photographer where low AL is the norm. I did an event yesterday where most of the shots were between 2.8 and 4.0 at an ISO of 1600 with a monster Metz 'tater masher flash. You can also use a 2X TC on the 2.8 and still maintain AF capability. I don't believe that's the case with the 4.0. In a well lighted venue I happily trade the 2.8 for a 4.0 just to get an extra pound off my neck. The optical quality is essentially the same for the two lenses.

For landscape work, especially if hiking or backpacking, the f/4 is as good as any best-in-class zoom lens in a package that's small and light.

Guy

I forgot to mention that the 70-200 and the 1.4 extender are a nice match. There is only a small loss of image quality when used with the 1.4 extender and the added weight is negligible.