70-200mm f/2.8 L or 70-200mm f/4L IS lens?

[tuffy]

Just saw the latest pricelist for both and realise that difference is only about $200? Is that real? anybody got these lenses lately? Pls share! Thanks. Comments on the lenses too!

[jeff49er]

I chose the f4 IS over the f2.8 non IS becos of the wt; i can live with f4 and the lens is the latest of the EF lenses.

f2.8 non IS is an old model and it is still good.

Next in line is f2.8 IS mark 2. Wont be surprise if Canon produces them with 82mm thread. Just think 16-35 f2.8 mk 2

[Bug]

I'd go for f2.8 anyday. IS is nice to have but cant compensate for a larger aperture when you need to blur that background.

f2.8 Mark 2 with IS - its a matter of time.

[davors]

i would choose the f4 with IS... reasons are lighter, portable and great for hand held...

f2.8 is heavy... without IS... you might get blurry shot... else... get a tripod....

just my view...

[miniUltraman]

I have given up the f2.8IS due to its weight... now I miss it so much.. and thinking real hard if I should get the 70-200f4LIS.. but I really miss the f2.8 so might get the f2.8 non-IS

[cantaresg]

I think I'd go for the f4 ver for the weight. For the slight(?) improvement in aperture, it is 2x the weight. Hard to handhold imo.

[NorthernLights]

I can handhold the 70-200 f2.8 L lens and shoot at 200mm at 1/100s. Below that not possible for me, although I had managed 1/60s once that came out sharp.

Still I saved 1 stop of light.

It's even more strange that I can mount a 1.4x TC, i.e. at 280mm and shoot at 1/100s.

[miniUltraman]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights I can handhold the 70-200 f2.8 L lens and shoot at 200mm at 1/100s. Below that not possible for me, although I had managed 1/60s once that came out sharp. Still I saved 1 stop of light. It's even more strange that I can mount a 1.4x TC, i.e. at 280mm and shoot at 1/100s.

You power

[cantaresg]

I have difficulties even to hold my 180mm and try to shoot at 1/200. Most of the time the image turns out ok. But there are some occasions that the image turns out blur. And its definitely motion blur rather than oof. So f2.8 is probably too heavy for me.

[Halfmoon]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights I can handhold the 70-200 f2.8 L lens and shoot at 200mm at 1/100s. Below that not possible for me, although I had managed 1/60s once that came out sharp. Still I saved 1 stop of light. It's even more strange that I can mount a 1.4x TC, i.e. at 280mm and shoot at 1/100s.

May I know where do you work out?? Maybe can join you when you working out???

[kelccm]

f/2.8 for me anytime. Just need to follow proper handholding techniques, or make full use of tripods and monopods. The extra stop and better bokeh more worth it than the IS and weight of the lenses,

[roadrunner_552]

F4 IS for me. F2.8 too heavy for me.

[nikolaiski]

After you use the 2.8L, I am sure many of you will be CONVERTS despite the lack of IS.

The lack of IS can be easily compensated for by use of a tripod or monopod, but I guess at the end of the day, it is what you value - portability or useability.

I'm a sucker for sharpness and good bokeh wide open, and overall flexibility.

Plus I shoot alot of cars, so even a 2.8L non IS with monopod can come in sharp at 1/40-50s for slow panning shots. Impressive lens!

[Beethoven]

what are you shooting?

[yehosaphat]

I guess there is no point in asking people which lens they prefer becos everyone will give different answers based on their own shooting needs and purpose for each of the lens.

Basically, understand the differences between the 2 and study your shooting needs. F2.8s are good if you need the additional DOF or you need to shoot in low lights and you don't mind the weight and size.

Get the F4 IS if you are looking for lightweight and shoot mainly outdoors (Not that you cant shoot indoors cos I do). Do note that IS does not freeze action but only helps to avoid handshake. Other than that, both are top class lenses that can deliver excellent images if used properly.

Based on the above, decide and BUY!

[RCheah]

I was deciding for a long time between the f4 IS and f2.8 IS, as my 70-200/f4 then was simply not usable indoors without flash. I did not consider the f2.8 non IS as I believe that at this range, IS is critically useful.

I finally went for the f2.8 IS - additional stop to help prevent motion blur, IS to help prevent camera shake.

Since then, I've taken hundreds of shots under relatively low light conditions. Yes it's a heavy lens and takes getting use to, and I still had to shoot at iso1600. But the IS is amazing! I was able to get consistently sharp photos at speeds that I never thought possible. The lowest I went was 1/8 at 200mm, but I think that is an exception. One to two stops below the recommended 1/focal-length is not a problem.

IMO, the f4 IS lens is too expensive.

[oeyvind]

hmmm, is there a 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK 2 now?

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by oeyvind hmmm, is there a 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK 2 now?

nope.

[sloth]

Originally Posted by yehosaphat I guess there is no point in asking people which lens they prefer becos everyone will give different answers based on their own shooting needs and purpose for each of the lens. Basically, understand the differences between the 2 and study your shooting needs. F2.8s are good if you need the additional DOF or you need to shoot in low lights and you don't mind the weight and size.

I have read the raging 70-200 f/4 IS vs 2.8 non-IS over most of the Internet during the 4 months where I took the time to make up my mind (time was, after all on my side then) including the insults and name calling.. it was very jialat.

Out of all that I have ever seen on this debate, yours is the BEST advice. Period. People would recommend based on their OWN needs, not based on what the TS needs (we are, after all not the TS ). So read up and understand the differences and the call is yours to make. I eventually gave up reading the threads and simply decided on what was best for me based on what I wanted. No regrets.

I owned the Sigma 70-200/2.8, similar to the Canon in size, weight and handling. Nice lens. Eventually ended up travelling a lot and changed over to the Canon f/4 IS. No regrets - for my case. If you travel a lot and you are not explicitly going there as a photographer (ie. on assignment) then f/4 may suit you better. For use locally I might consider a 2.8 again, but that's just me. I don't need the huge aperture most of the time - I just control subject-to-background distance whenever I can. (bokeh is also a function of distance).

At the same time, a friend of mine shoots motorsports under track lighting at night, so I recommended him the 2.8 non-IS without hesitation as he really needs the extra aperture to stop action. I don't do this - so the f/4 IS is fine. I prefer airshows, which are usually in bright daylight (and the 100-400 is better suited)

I got the tripod ring as well. Makes it more comfortable to handhold and zoom at the same time as it balances nicely.

[flyer]

Can I hear from 70-200f2.8IS owners how is the IQ wide open at 200mm? Wondering if it's true that the IQ drops a lot coz I'm thinking how much a 2x TC would degrade the IQ if it's already bad at 200mm. I've tried the 2x TC on a 300f2.8 and it was still pretty sharp, but that's because the lens is sharp as a tack to begin with. Thanks in advance.