I picked up a canon 70-200mm f4 IS L on Monday. I had ordered the 2.8 version (with IS) the week before but it’s way to big and heavy for what I want to do. A lot of sports shooters like to argue that the 2.8 version will save shots with added shutter speed, but I doubt just one stop will save the shot. I happen to have some fast primes when it’s that crucial that will get me 2 stops, so for me this is a better solution.

I primarily have this lens as a travel lens. I prefer primes for the most part, but when traveling it’s hard to bring a bag full of primes. I sold my 24-70 f/2.8 for this lens because I feel this range compliments a UWA zoom better because there is no overlap. I don’t really want to bring 3 zooms along, so if I’m going with 2 a tele and wide zoom make more sense, at least to me. Also this lens is sharper than the 2.8 version (both are sharp, but this is close to prime sharp IMHO). It also has a newer generation IS, so you can get a shot in the same situation as you could with the 2.8 and it’s IS, you’ll just be at f4 and your shutter speed will be double, but the IS will make that OK. So for me it seems like it will be a great travel lens.

I know I change my lineup a lot, but I’m hoping this is the right decision. I ordered the 2.8 version so I could see how it worked and felt. I knew if I didn’t do that in the back of my head I’d always second guess going with the “lesser” f4 version. I’m so happy I tired the 2.8 version because it was eye opening to see the size of it. I’m a big guy, but it’s tiring holding it where this is very comfortable. This weights about half what the 2.8 version did. Also the difference in aperture doesn’t effect bokeh much if that’s what you’re after. If you’re only going to shoot zooms and need a fast lens then the 2.8 makes sense, but if you shoot zooms and primes like I do, I think the f4 is a much better lens. Also if you’re not into sports or anything that’s moving fast, the 2.8 is probably overkill anyway.