Someone stop me from...

[nestle]

Someone stop me from pulling the trigger on the 70-200 f/4 IS. :o Looks like I can get a decent deal by going through Shop.com to get it from Adorama. My other option is the f/2.8 IS which is about $600 more expensive but I can afford it. Well, I can afford it but this just means that it will be a longer period of time before I will be able to buy other goodies. (I'm sure most of you know what that feels like!) :)

I am looking at the IS lenses mainly because for my usage, the camera/lens will be handheld. I'd say 70% of the time, it will be used outdoors for people photography (model and candids).

The struggle is mainly with the sharpness. I've done tons of reading about Canon's 70-200 competition over the weekend and it looks to me like the f/4 IS has exceptional sharpness while the f/2.8 IS is not as sharp as the f/4 IS nor the f/2.8 non-IS in most cases.

I am also finding comfort in the fact that Canon's lenses (especially the Ls) have great resale value. So if I got the f/4 IS and decide later on that I'll need something faster (or if the f/2.8 IS Mark II comes out heh), I will be able to fund the upgrade without substantial loss.

My current lineup is: 30D, 17-40mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 (wow!), and the 580EX II. So a telephoto lens is much needed to fulfill my multi-purpose arsenal.

Thanks!

[hjohnson]

You won't regret the F/4L IS. I picked one up a month or so ago, and I'm extremely pleased with it. While I've never owned a lens of this calibre before, I can tell you that right now, the limit on image quality seems to be the sensor in my 350D rather than the lens itself, which is a big change from the kit lens. :)

For me, the fact that it's half the weight of the f/2.8 was the deciding factor since I want to take this lens out on the trail. The only downside is that my roommate, who does photography semi-professionally, keeps borrowing it for his gigs. ;)

[nestle]

The only downside is that my roommate, who does photography semi-professionally, keeps borrowing it for his gigs. ;)

Haha, you should charge him $1 per day. :)

Thanks for the reply. I need some more replies and from someone who can play the devil's advocate for me. Someone persuade me to get the IS 2.8. :D

[timnosenzo]

IMHO you would have to really love to pixel peep in order to find sharpness differences in any of the Canon 70-200's. They're really all very superb lenses--I've owned one of each, and they've all done well shooting wide open, offering great color, contrast and sharpness.

Factoring everything else out of the equation (including price), which lens would best suit your needs? If you don't think you'll need the extra stop, then the f/4 IS is probably the right lens for you. If you will shoot indoors or NEED the little extra auto-focus ability that the f/2.8 will get you, then go for it.

[Tee Why]

Outdoor portraits and candids can be handled better by a 70-200f2.8 non IS lens. As using IS won't freeze moving subjects for candids. F4 is pretty slow for portraiture.

For a lot less money and weight, I'd consider some primes like a 85mm, 100mm, or a 135mm. If a zoom a 70-200 f2.8 maybe better for your needs.

[thekid24]

Ok if you want to be stopped here is how I can help.

Send me the money.

BOOM.....instant relief.

[gasrocks]

I sold my 70-200/2.8 L IS and got a 70-200/4 L IS and I am glad I did. I suppose that doesn't help.

[nestle]

For a lot less money and weight, I'd consider some primes like a 85mm, 100mm, or a 135mm. If a zoom a 70-200 f2.8 maybe better for your needs.

The reason why I am looking at the 70-200 is because of my current lens collection (50mm, 17-40mm, 24-70mm) so I wanted to fill the huge nothingness that exist in the telephoto area. I am looking forward to its versatility.

I sold my 70-200/2.8 L IS and got a 70-200/4 L IS and I am glad I did. I suppose that doesn't help.

No, that helps... what'll help me more is if you explain why you decided to switch. :)

Thanks!

[SkipD]

I would not trade my 70-200 f/2.8L IS for any of the others in the family - period.

[Kennymc]

Sorry there's no hope of stopping you...

[gasrocks]

The 4 IS is lighter, a bit sharper, focuses closer and costs less (than the 2.8 IS.) I do not shoot much indoors so the 2.8 was not of much value to me as others. Yes, the 2.8 IS is a status symbol and did get me into events free, but, I'll use the 4 IS and be happier.

[JohnJ80]

What would be really nice is if they gave the f/2.8 IS a re-work like they did the f/4 adding current IS and some upgraded optics. now THAT would be a lens to die for. RIght now, if you are shooting outside, I'd take the f/4 IS over the f/2.8 for most applications.

J

[denno75uk]

Considering that 200mm would be your longest length, consider that adding a X1.4TC to the 2.8 would give you an f/4 lens at 280mm or an f/5.6 with a X2TC. Factor in the IS and the 2.8 seems the most versatile option.
The f/4 is reputed to be the sharper but you can stop the 2.8 down to get equal results. The f/4 can never go 'up' to f/2.8 for those speedy shots.
The key here is that you've said you can afford it. Normally I consider the 70-200 f/2.8 IS a rather lazy recommendation as it's often suggested to people in the market for something way cheaper. In your case you say it's in budget and so from what I've read/know it's a no-brainer. I personally went for the Sigma because it was significantly cheaper but of course there's no IS and there's no doubt it's a massive bonus if you can afford it.

[Mark Kemp]

I have the f2.8 and my mate the f4. If there is a quality difference its pretty small as I don't really see it in practice, both lenses are very sharp. The f4 is obviously smaller and lighter which can be a factor but then being able to set f2.8 and blurr everything but the subject can be helpful too. You don't use that shallow depth of field often but when you do it can really make the shot. Plus of course a wider max aperture means better autofocus. I chose one route and my friend the other, both have their advantages. As long as you understand what you are choosing and why, you will get whatever is best for you.

[nestle]

Can someone with the 2.8 IS comment on the weight? How long do you can you go handholding it before you get tired? Or do anyone even use it without a mono/tripod? 3.2lbs doesn't seem like a big deal to me but I may be underestimating it.

What would be really nice is if they gave the f/2.8 IS a re-work like they did the f/4 adding current IS and some upgraded optics.

I think this is my secondary concern of investing in the 2.8 IS. What if I got the 2.8 IS and Canon comes out with a 2.8 IS Mark II? In such a case I think the resale value of the 2.8 IS would drop. Whereas if I got the f/4 IS and decide to upgrade to a 2.8 IS later on, I wouldn't be (presumably) losing too much on resale.

Denny, thanks for the idea about the teleconverter, haven't even thought about that!

Thanks everyone for your feedback! Still haven't decided on which yet... but I am very excited about such a long focal length.

[Mark Kemp]

I don't have a major problem with the weight. I can handhold the 70 -200 f2.8 or the 100 - 400 as much as I need during an all day event, like a motor race. Obviously not for hours on end, but a couple of minutes on and a couple of minutes off is easy enough. If I need it 'ever ready' for more than about 10 minutes at a time I will use a monopod, they are not much help for stability but great for weight. The handling problems are more to do with the size of the bag you need and the carrying and walking with the camera than actually using it.

[SkipD]

I don't have a major problem with the weight. I can handhold the 70 -200 f2.8 or the 100 - 400 as much as I need during an all day event, like a motor race. Obviously not for hours on end, but a couple of minutes on and a couple of minutes off is easy enough. If I need it 'ever ready' for more than about 10 minutes at a time I will use a monopod, they are not much help for stability but great for weight. The handling problems are more to do with the size of the bag you need and the carrying and walking with the camera than actually using it.Ditto.....

[timnosenzo]

I don't have a major problem with the weight. I can handhold the 70 -200 f2.8 or the 100 - 400 as much as I need during an all day event, like a motor race. Obviously not for hours on end, but a couple of minutes on and a couple of minutes off is easy enough. If I need it 'ever ready' for more than about 10 minutes at a time I will use a monopod, they are not much help for stability but great for weight. The handling problems are more to do with the size of the bag you need and the carrying and walking with the camera than actually using it.
Same here. Carrying it all day doesn't really bother me. If I knew I was going to be somewhere taking pictures from a single location or position then I would probably use the mono-pod, but I've walked around the zoo for 8 hours taking pictures and lived to tell about it. ;)

[JoeW]

I have a similar setup to yours (but an older camera and flash). The 70-200 f4 IS really fits the bill for me. I've gotten a couple of indoor shots at 200mm handheld at 1/6th of a second--most of them turned out bad, but managed to get a couple of shots that I couldn't have gotten any other way. And though the 2.8 of my 24-70 is really nice to have and might be nice on the 70-200, that lens is a lot bigger, heavier and more noticable. I wouldn't have been able to get the photos I did with that lens--it would have been noticed and the mood spoiled. I've never used the 70-200 2.8, but can attest that the f4 IS is great.

[khiromu]

Don't forget the non-IS version of f4. If you are doing it mostly outdoor, you may be able to live with non-IS version and save some money!!