70-200 f4 L IS USM or 70-200 F2.8 NO IS

[barbara A]

Hello!
I have a canon 550d
I piacerebe acqusitare a 70-200 and are torn between the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8
What is best
thanks

[Busted Knuckles]

Both are great - I have the 2.8 and it weighs a lot. The 2.8 weighs just short of twice as much. When I shoot the local soccer team, mono-pod is a requirement just to take the weight off my arms between shots. When I go to the local botanical gardens, I take my tripod and use it like a mono-pod between shots, again to take the weight off my arms.

Evaluate the subject of your shooting, IS is great if your subjects don't move all that much OR you are outside with plenty of light and you don't need the extra F-stop of light. If this is the case, you can save lots of dollars and weight w/ the f4.

If you shoot inside and your subjects are reasonably stationary, the f4 w/ IS will get you further.

As much as I love my 2.8 I am finding I don't shoot 2.8 all that often.

HOWEVER, if you are shooting very high speed subjects (race horses, etc) and you want to be at 1/4000 & 2.8 versus. 1/2000 and 4.0 , OR you shoot portraits and you want the smaller depth of field and don't want to fiddle in photoshop post production then the 2.8 may be the better choice.

These are my opinions and like belly buttons most people have at least one.

Many happy pics to you

[eldarhau]

I have the 2.8L IS II and after reading your post yesterday, I tried to walk around with my lens on a 7D body, with the IS turned off. And it did not take long before I realized how spoiled we have become with IS on almost all lenses (or maybe I´m getting old and shaky...). I agree with BK that the benefit of the 2.8 is the shallow DOF for portraits and the occasional very-high-speed-shutter speed/2.8 combo. In my view, everything else points towards the f4.0 IS. On your body that lens gives you a fairly shallow DOF anyway. It will also be a physically much more attractive package. The 2.8L is a big lens.

Good luck with your choice!