hj Loc: Florida

I have been using the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L lens (without IS) to shoot local community college soccer games in daylight. Due to it's weight I have used a monopod which limits fluid following of the action. I am considering going to the F4L non-is for less weight and not needing the monopod. I know the comparisons of the two lenses regarding f stops etc and just have one question. Will the F4L give image quality comparable to the F2.8L in daylight conditions?

Nature_Shooter Loc: Chesterfield Missouri

I have both lenses except my f4 is IS. For outdoors, I always use the f4. There is plenty of light and you can still get the shutter speeds you want. Indoors, I usually use the f2.8. Also, shooting 2.8 gives you very little depth of field so your focus point has to be precise. The image quality with the f4 lens will be excellent.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Reviews say the same or sharper with the f/4. Easy enough to look it up. It is a great sports lens. Great for outdoors in good light. If your camera has high ISO capabilities, even better.
I use mine with the older 7D. I try to avoid anything above ISO 800. I have not owned the 2.8 version. Hope this helps.

Haydon

Under daylight conditions, hand holding will be a blessing in disguise with the F4 over the 2.8 if done long term. The F4 is an equal in sharpness. Recently I shot about 300 images in an hour with a 5D3 gripped & 70-200L 2.8 II. I have no regrets using that combination but I was struggling towards the end to make steady shots because of the weight.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

YES ! .........and BTW, you do have a good tilt head on your monopod - don't you ??

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

F4 IQ is comparable
...get the Manfrotto RC234 tilt head for your monopod....you will get fluid motion ;-)

fourg1b2006 Loc: Long Island New York

I have the Canon 70-200 f4L w/IS...fantastic lens.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Actually the f/4 IS if anything will deliver better image quality, it was always considered to be one of the sharpest zoom lenses that Canon ever produced... Not as good for low light and portraiture however. I have owned both and chose to stay with the 2.8 version simply for portraiture.

John Matthews Loc: Wasilla, Alaska

I have both the non-IS f4 and the non-IS 2.8 and use on a canon 6d to shoot soccer (almost always at 200mm). I find the 2.8 focus is faster (can't quantify) and if you pixel peep or crop a moderate amount the 2.8 a tad sharper (on my copies). As you are well aware the weight difference is significant. IMO I think if you are missing shots because of having to use the monopod the f4 will be good enough.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

A few have pointed this out already. What head are you using on your monopod?

bowserb

I concur with the tilt head for your monopod. It transforms it from a stick into a real camera support. Otherwise, if you didn't have the 2.8 already, I'd also agree with saving weight (and $$$) with the F4. However, you have the 2.8 already, and if you can deal with the weight thanks to your tilt head modified monopod, you'll continue to benefit from: faster, more precise AF with most Canon DSLRs; brighter viewfinder especially in low light; shallower depth of field when you want it; and ... $1,100 still in your wallet!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Either of the 70-200/4L's (IS or non-IS) will give BETTER image quality than the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. Yours is the oldest of the Canon 70-200L's (1995) and lacks fluorite. All three of the other current models use fluorite for sharper images with less chromatic aberrations.

This is not to knock the image quality of your lens. It's very good. But both the f/4 lenses are even better and the latest-and-greatest f/2.8 IS II's IQ is the best of all.

The f/4 lenses are about 2/3 the size and weight of the f/2.8 versions.

The f/4 lenses don't come with a tripod mounting ring, but one can be added if you wish. Like all L-series, they come with a hood... but the f/4 lenses use a standard type of hood instead of the "tulip" style used on the f/2.8 lenses.

I would HIGHLY recommend the f/4 "IS" version... To me the stabilization is well worth the additional cost on any and all telephotos. And, dating from 2006 it's also the second newest design (after the f/2.8 IS "II", 2010). Both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS II use three-to-four-stop IS systems. (Earlier IS lenses were rated for two-to-three stops worth of assistance.)

The f/4 non-IS was introduced in 1999 and is Canon's least expensive lens using fluorite.

I have both f/2.8 IS and f/4 IS... originally bought the f/4 lens as a backup, since 70-200 is one of my most used lenses (shooting sports). But I find I actually use the f/4 more often. I mostly use mine hand held, but have Canon Tripod Ring A-2 for use on it when wanted.

Bob Boner

I own the 2.8 and the 4, both IS. I much prefer the 4. Very sharp. My 2.8 is the first version so the later ones are surely better. But when the Canon 5DS came out, the 4 was recommended as being sharp enough to profit from the increased image size, and the 2.8 was not.

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

f/4 is great for any outdoor sports action. The weight and size will make a new shooter out of you, all day long. Go for the f/4 you will be very pleased and very surprised too.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I have this very lens you are considering. It is fairly light and extremely sharp. Some say sharper than the 2.8 version.