canon 70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 f2.8 is vs 70-200 f2.8 is II

[Sheiky]

I have the 70-200 F4L IS and it is an amazing lens. I use it for pretty much everything, even sports. However the f2.8 definitely has it's benefits for the aspirations you have so I vote f2.8. It's a little more cash, but it also has more options. What camera would you be using it with?

[wildstraw]

At the moment a 60D, but ill upgrade in the future (hopefully a 5D mkIII ) the 1.6 cropped sensor helps improve that zoom which is great for sports (on the 60D obviously). Thanks for everyones help! im looking hard for a 2nd hand 2.8 mk I !! and ill get around to doing my "about me" stuff soon, not much to tell yet though, haha.

[tmsteiman]

The 2.8 is an awesome lens, but I personally went with the f/4 IS. To me the IS was much more important than getting one extra stop. I guess it really depends on what you're shooting. With such a large lens as the f/2.8 (if you're shooting hand-held), definitely go with IS. However, the 2.8 IS is considerably more expensive than the f/4 IS.

[wildstraw]

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS mkI bought, ill repost when i get my hands on it! Thanks guys!

[light habit]

I've used a 70-200/4 and a 70-200/2.8, both non-IS. the /4 is a wonderfully sharp lens, and weighs next to nothing. the /2.8, though, is great for low light, and lets you blur the background more. the /2.8 (non-IS) is on ebay for around $1100. the 200/2.8 prime is reallllly a sweet lens, though i let mine go because i needed more flexibility.

[SILVIO]

Mi interessa 70-200 f/4 L IS USM
Qualcuno puo dirmi come va
grazie