Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 or Canon 70-200mm IS f/4

[donnman]

Now that I pretty much made up my mind on the lens another question popped up. Sorry if this sounds repetitive but I need opinions please.


Im looking to buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 NON IS, but I could also get the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS.


Will I get more out of the lens with IS than I would with the non IS lens but with the f/2.8?

[Chuck Lee]

I just responded to that question in your lasty post.....[]

[wusstigphoto]

I never even considered the F4 IS in my original decision... it was always between the 2.8 IS or non-IS.


Iended up buyingthe 2.8 non-ISsince it allowed me to buy an Induro monopod and stay within my budget. It definately gives you a better chance in low-light settingssuch as churches, gymnasiums, and outdoor around dusk than an f4 lenswould but having a steady hand comes into play at that point without the monopod.


Pictures from this lens are breathtaking... especially if your abokaholic and can manage to shoot at f2.8 @200mm whenever possible to maximize the effect.


In hindsight of over a year of use where I canrecollect having blurred pics even with my monopod,IF I were to do it over again, I would've justbitten the bullet (aka blown my budget) andbought the 2.8 IS version to begin with.


That all said, the 2.8 non-IS is my recommendationgiven your choices.


Dave

[lculpin]

I agree, hands down the 2.8. I have an f/4 non-IS and the 2.8 IS, and even WITH IS I can't imagine the 4 being nearly as useful as the 2.8. If you can't get the shutter speed you need to freeze the action of the players w/ an F/4 lens, it ain't gonna matter if it has IS or not, unless you're just intending to have everything BUT the players sharp

[ShutterbugJohan]

The f/2.8 will be much better for sports than the f/4 IS

[Alan]

The f/2.8 will be much better for sports than the f/4 IS
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm curious...why would this be true? Most sports are outdoors, in good light. An f/4 should do fine.


I've seen plenty of fantastic shots with another f/4 lens (the 300 mm).

[Sean Setters]

The f/2.8 will be much better for sports than the f/4 IS
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm curious...why would this be true? Most sports are outdoors, in good light. An f/4 should do fine.


I've seen plenty of fantastic shots with another f/4 lens (the 300 mm).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

It really depends what sport you'll want to be photographing. For example, if I were photographing sports, it would likely be indoor basketball games or outdoor football games at night. Under these conditions, the f/2.8 (IS or non-IS), a monopod, and a camera with decent high-ISO performance would be ideal. I'm not sure an f/4 lens would excel under these conditions.

[donnman]

I will be shooting football, cheerleading, hockey, and swimming. The camera I have is the Canon XSi.

[richm]

I will be shooting football, cheerleading, hockey, and swimming. The camera I have is the Canon XSi.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Given that you'll be shooting sports, I'd go with the 2.8. I have the 2.8IS and am pleased that I waited to get it. I was torn between the 4IS and the 2.8IS, and waited until I saved a little more. I rented both for a couple of days, and they are both fantastic IQ lenses, both with strength and weaknesses. However, the hockey and swimming shots were better w/ the 2.8 for obvious reasons.

[wusstigphoto]

Here's a link to a softball tournament shot with a 30D,f2.8 70-200 and ISO 3200. My partner used a Mark I at high ISO (a bit noisy) and an f2.8 300...


My guess would be that an f4 would not have givenme the shutter speeds required for stop-action pics... Needless to say I discounted all the pricing as they were 'just okay' for sale.


Dave


http://galleries.10framesasecond.com/g/2009_az_5a-i_state_championship