Canon 70-200 lens I vs II vs III and F2.8 vs F4 ? I have a 16-35 f2.8 and a 24-105 f4 both L glass zooms and looking to just add one more lens for the farther shots or ? I definitely do want IS, that's very important for me on the bigger lenses. Looking for advice on the differences between the first version, middle version and the newest version which is really expensive. Seen a couple people post on facebook that the 2 is actually better than the 3, is this true? are they both that much better than the 1st version? Is the F2.8 really that much better than the F4 outside of low light situations? I don't do weddings or dark stuff normally, mainly cooking videos and just family fun stuff but starting to do more family, bird and dog portraits and lots of action shots with the dog is my main reason for IS and hope to use it on some camping trips is the reason I'm looking at this lens. Can the tripod mount be added to the lens that doesn't come with it? Just a hobby photo video guy here not a pro, Canon 6D MK2 and M50 is what I currently own, hope to upgrade to 90D or R6 soon. Thanks
So there a a couple of loaded questions here.. The 70-200 L's are all great lenses so I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. Are the newer ones a bit better, well yes they do make some improvements in design. The price was naturally driven down as they like to keep the newest one around 2k. If you go out and buy a sports car brand new vs buying a few year old version for a fraction of the cost does it make the cheaper one any less nice of a car? No, but there may be a few extra horses under the hood. There are a few sites out there that geek out on the specs and actual design differences (you can dig into them if you like) but I'll just say the you should buy the one that fits your budget, a newer would be less miles of use so there is something to be considered there. Looks like you are not gear shy about investing in better gear. The 2.8 vs 4.0, i will definitely argue yes to that. When you set the lens to 2.8 it is twice as much light into the camera than at 4.0. That would reduce you ISO in half or shutter speed in half depending on what you need. In fact I would be you that it will be more usable for the action shots than your IS is. You do not need IS at 1/200 or faster and it may add softness if used when it shouldn't be (especially on a tripod).. Using it at 1/30 1/60 1/100 yes it will be nice but if the kids and dog are running around you may not be able to freeze their motion. Definitely a great feature, I recommend both a fast lens and IS if you can. You'll use the 2.8 if you have it.
I have the f4 IS, and the tripod foot that comes with my 400 f5.6 L is interchangeable with this lens. I am sure that you would not have to look that far or hard before you found one that would fit the f2.8 lens. If you have a look on https://www.lenstip.com/, they have a review on a couple of the f2.8 lenses you are looking at. Gary
