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

[henytran]

LOL.

I agree with going f/2.8. I had the f/4 for a while, loved that it was light and very sharp but I ended up needed the faster glass. I ended up splurging and getting the f/2.8 with IS. I haven't been able to compare IS to non IS with the same f/ stop but I definitely thing going with the fastest glass possible is helpful, especially in sports.


I noticed a big difference when taking pictures of my dog outside chasing the frisbee. IS won't let you "stop" the action like a high shutter speed will. I do find the IS to be super helpful when I'm taking portraits indoors though.


To me the only drawbacks to IS are the price and the extra power consumed. I'm not sure if it adds any weight or not, but I definitely feel the weight difference between f/2.8 and f/4. Well worth it IMO.

[henytran]

Oh I forgot to add, if you're shooting hockey, I'd go with the 2.8.

[dizzy]

<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]For me it's simple. If you are a pro go for the f2.8. If you are an amateur wanting to use it as walk around lens, take it on trips/vacation etc with you go for the f4. <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]It&rsquo;s too heavy the f2.8. You'll start having problems with your neck after a couple of hours!<o></o>

[lculpin]

The 2.8 is definately heavier (and the IS does add some weight). You get used to it though (and your neck gets a lot bigger :P)


Another pro for the 2.8 - if you decide you want a little more reach later on, you can always grab the 1.4x extender and then you're looking at an F/4 lens with a bit more reach if F/4 will do in certain situations. If you get the f/4 now, you'll have a 5.6 lens which is really beyond the land of usefullness for a lot of sports.

[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.

[Cushty]

There is quite a lobby out there that think the f4 version is a lot sharper - This includes my local canon dealer who has tried more than a few samples to try and disprove it. I have the f4 IS version and with the matching 1.4x extender it beats my 100-400 L series every time. With a 2.0x extender you do lose auto focus.

[RadicalTenth]

I would get the 2.8, especially if you are going to be doing any indoor work at all.

[donnman]

Well, I made up my mind, FINALLY....lol


I am going with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 non is - just cant afford the IS version.


Anyway my price will be a total of $1,195.28 which includes tax and shipping. Does this sound like a fair / good price? This is for a brand new lens. Thoughts on the price?

[Sean Setters]

Worth every penny. ;-)

[Chuck Lee]

Anyway my price will be a total of $1,195.28

Excellent price donnman.


You'll really enjoy that lens. I know I do.