Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions

They are just cheaper and if you are going to take photos at f8 or slower they are negligble in quality at that time, but the f2.8l's are better than the f4 just for 2x the price they are not quite 2x faster, at the 1 stop quicker they still have worse contrast and color than the f4's at their most open setting, maybe 50% faster at the zoom based lenses. Each lens is different so at the 24-70mm range because there is already so much instability at wide open and that it is a zoom lens there is very little improvement with the f2.8's. If it was a 200mm telephoto plus then the f2.8 would be a huge difference as canon is capable of making a lens that can reach that speed with controlled quality. Sadly the canons that are more wide open and even more so with zooms are not capable of hitting 2.8 well controlled and are more expensive. So while canon makes faster lenses at lower mm a lot of time they are for their price just not worth it as they are abysmal in their most open settings, yes at the same fstop as the slowers they are better but for the price not as good of a deal. for the 70-200mm it is not a good of a deal because in the MTF graphs almost all the control they have in the prime 200mm is lost trying to make a zoom lense wide open, it is bad at 70mm and also bad at 200mm at f2.8 the prime is just fine at f2.8. So if you did not like the 4L, you probably will not appreciate the f2.8 L either. You may really only appreciate having a prime 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm individually.
Why were the 4L versions of Canon's Pro L series lenses chosen? The Canon L f/2.8s are what is needed if you want capture the nuances of facial expressions, or movement etc. I am about to sell my 70 - 200mm EF 4L Canon telephoto lens because of these reasons.