My First L???

[Jayson]

I have been looking into getting my first "L" lens. I am planning on using the lens to photo my kids in the yard, possibly some tennis stuff this summer,and maybe using it forscenery photos. I am on a limited budget. But hoping that changes with some projects in the near future.I have three lenses in mind at this time and looking for input.


The three are 70-200L f/4 w/o IS, the 70-200 L f/2.8 w/o IS, or the 70-200L f/4 w/ IS.


The way I understand it, IS is for subjects that don't move or move very little and doesn't really help with moving subjects. Please correct me if I am wrong. I readthe review and it appears that the f/4 lenses and the f/2.8 are very comparable in IQ. So, my big question would be...am I better served purchasing the f/4 w/o IS and buying some other good quality lens for portrait stuff, or should Ijust buck up and get either the f/4 w/ IS or the f/2.8?


Please help!!!!

[David Selby]

The 2.8 is what I own. IS is for hand holding the lens at slower shutter speeds, but as you said does nothing to correct subject movement.





2.8 lets in twice as much light as F4.0. This means your shutter speed will be twice as fast, which can mean the difference between capturing action or not.





if you intend to shoot sports, indoors or out, I would advise looking at the faster glass 2.8 it will allow you to achieve higher shutter speeds. thats really what it comes down to, your intended usage.

[GSPhoto]

Since you are going to do mostly outdoors the 2.8 might not be worth the extra. I have the 2.8 with IS and I love it but, I do a lot of indoor and


outdoor shooting. The IS is amazing on the 2.8 which I would imagine same on f/4. It also has a second IS option that you use when panning, such as when your kids are running or tennis players moving very fast. I might suggest the F/4 with IS. Hope this helps.

[EdN]

I have both the 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F4 IS. The non IS was my first L lens and it's quite spectacular in outdoor stuff. I got the IS version as I also like to do low light work and it's also great. If you can afford it, the IS gives you more flexibility for low light shooting. I don't have the 2.8 but I believe it is about the same size as the 300 F4L. That's also a nice lens but it's big and not fun to pack that around all day and if you want to be discrete taking pictures, it's a conspicuously large lens to point around.

[Tony Printezis]

The IS is amazing on the 2.8 which I would imagine same on f/4.

The IS on the f4 is in fact a bit better (3rd generation, 4-stop). The f2.8 has a 2nd generation, 3-stop IS. The f4 is considered a bit sharper too. Also keep in mind that the f4 is half the weight of the f2.8, so it's easier to carry around.


Tony

[Joel Bookhammer]

Hey Jayson I own the 70-200 2.8 IS and love it, I though it was alittle heavy at first but you get used to it very quickly after seeing the results in lower light, Im currently shooting with a 40Dwith the battery grip and can shoot a full day with ease knowing the results I will be getting.So if I was choosing between the f/4 w/o or the f/4 with IS, I would choose the f/4 with the image stabilizer. My theory is its better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. This is all just my opinion all of your lens choices are excellent choices so whichever you choose I think you will really enjoy it.


joel

[MVers]

For kids and sports (Tennis) f/2.8 without a doubt.

[Jayson]

Thank you all for your advise. This is going to be a tough choice.

[greggf]

Hey Jayson...here's my 2 cents, along with everybody else's. I currently own the f4 IS and it is a stellar lens, and I do mean stellar. Granted it is a stop slower than the 2.8, but it weighs half as much(the f4 IS weighs less than my 28-70L), has fantastic IS, is sharp, and I mean sharp wide open, corner to corner. It might not be the best sports lens, but here is an example of my dog Rajah, chasing the ball and jumping....but this lens does everything else right, too. this pic taken with 5D ll, 70-200 f4IS, iso 400, 200mm, 5.6@1/2500. Your choice, but you really can't go wrong with either.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/Rajah-jumping_2D00_0850-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg[/img]

[Keith B]

Well if it's in the budget, go with the 2.8L IS. You will never have to second guess yourself.


I'd almost recommend a different lens though, probably the 24-105L 4.0 IS. I think you'll find 70-200 Is pretty tight for photographing the active kids. At least consider for your second L.