Printable View
Thanks to you all for the input on new lenses to purchase on my stated budget.
Since IS is a new feature and learning curve for me .... If I get a 70-200L lens for my outsideescapdes, hikes and sport events I would like to know the real world implicationsof purchasingthe 70-200 f/4 IS USM versus the 70-200 f/2.8 USM model.
I just got the F2.8 non-IS version, and I can assure you it's great. In low light conditions (just one light on in my room -it's a powerful light, but not that bright-) I can get acceptable handheld shots at 1/50 up to 100mm (I'm using an XSi) which means it's pretty steady, if you can hold it properly. Just to give you an idea: ISO 1600, 1/50-30, F2.8 and I can shoot ok pictures of the books on my shelf. And I mean you can read the titles very well, even though they're not so sharp.
If you don't have that steady a hand you should go for the F4 IS -I'm not bragging- which, I think, has a 3-stop IS? You could hold it at 1/15 of a second without problems, but still, it has a narrower aperture.
I don't know if I did anything to help you...if not, just ask some more detailed questions =)
To IS or not IS? The answer depends on what you shoot. If you shoot action (moving subjects), the IS doesn't help much. IS helps you eliminate camera/hand shakes.
My standard rule of thumb applies: if your pictures suffer from subject blur, you likely need "more aperture", while if they suffer from total blur, you likely need IS.
If you are outside, you'll likely have enough light to get fast shutter speeds, and therefore IS won't matter much. If your shutter speeds end up in the range of 16/EFL to 1/EFL, you'd likely benefit from IS (where EFL is the effective focal length, with crop factor added in). Realize that if they're in the range of 16/EFL to 8/EFL normally, you need to pick a lens with a "latest-generation" IS that can theoretically provide four stops' worth of stabilization; 8/EFL to 4/EFL would need a three-stop IS model, etc.
As a side factor, the 70-200/4s use 67mm filters, which seems to be a rare size. You might have to buy filters "all over again", so that could factor into your decision. Likewise, the f/4 models are half the weight of the f/2.8 models, and that can be a BIG factor. I was shooting a wedding, and had the 70-200/2.8 while I was standing behind the bridal party as the guests walked past the receiving line. Shooting through heads, I had to grab faces as I could; that darned lens got heavy fast!
Hi all --
I am extremely happy with my 70-200 f/4 IS and prefer it to the larger, faster 2.8.
In particular I find it easy o pack, carry, and shoot in travel situations. It fits in my "discreet carry" shoulder bag, useful in many contexts. Most importantly it takes great photos, with or without the hood; without the hood, I can throw it around inside a moving car and get great shots, and it's small and light enough for my wife to handle (tiny hands) for hours at a time. Optically, I think it's great! And at 150-200mm zoom ranges we get keepers even shooting through the windshield on road trips here in India. For me, the IS is a no-brainer because I like to shoot handheld candids in lively situations in the developing world. The only thing that'd make me like my 70-200 f/4 IS more is if I had a lens coat or whatever to further reduce attention-getting.
- Isaac
I have the f/4 IS and I like it a lot. Most of the points I would make have already been made. The f/2.8 is twice as heavy, the f/4 IS is much faster in handholdability while the f/2.8 is a bit faster in subject-stopping, from Bryan's ISO crops, is seems to me that the f/4 IS is sharper than the f/2.8. Really it comes down to what you want to use it for. If the sporting events you are shooting are outdoors and in the sun, then I would go f/4 IS, but if you are talking gym lighting....you will probably have trouble stopping fast action. Either way is a great choice, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
One determining factor: Will you be shooting in low light? For low light (overcast included) sporting events f/2.8 hands down. For everything else you listed (outside escapades, hikes), f/4IS--it is much lighter and smaller than the 2.8 versions and yields the best IQ (in terms of sharpness) of them all. Another thing you may want to keep in mind is bokeh quality and while some like the f/4's bokeh rendition I can only tell you the f/2.8 is much better @ f/2.8, so if portraiture is something you plan to do the f/2.8 would take the cake and eat it too. This is something the f/4IS could never do given the exact circumstances (Taken with the 70-200/2.8IS):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2311/...a2a5fea124.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/...bfa5c2b8f8.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/...65aa014474.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/...74247b43_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/...d35e5b9eab.jpg
If you can afford to save up a bit longer, the 2.8IS may well be worth it.
Perhaps not a deciding factor, but the IS models are weather sealed, the non-IS are not. Of course this is probably irrelevant if you're not using a weather sealed body as well!
I think the f/4 non-IS is the only 70-200 that is not weather sealed.
nevermind, I'm wrong.