70-200 L 2.8 or 4.0

[loebas]

Have seen some results of this lens and would like to buy it.
I want to use it for general purpose and as "wildlife" lens.


Wonder, if I should buy the 2.8 with or without IS or the 4.0
The quality of pictures of those lenses seems the same to me.
Price is considerably different. As I also take pictures in the woods (darker circumtances) i think a 2.8 will fit best.

Are my considerations right or ?

[EoSD30fReAk]

personaly i would say the f2.8

the IS is a very personal thing, i for instance bought the f2.8 non IS because i didn't want to spend an extra 500 euro just for IS.
but others will say it's worth the extra cash, so it's up to you if you're willing to spend the extra cash

[gcogger]

Quality is about the same. The f/2.8 weighs and costs about twice as much, but lets in twice as much light.
The depth of field at f/2.8 will be pretty small, especially at 200mm (e.g. for a Canon 10D/20D/300D at 200mm f/2.8 the dof is about +/- 4" at 30ft distance).

[gramps]

If this is going to be a "wildlife" lens you may want to consider going to the 100 - 400. I have the 70 - 200 & the 100 - 400. The 400 end is very nice for those further away shots.

[Jon]

For real wildlife, rather than what wanders into your yard in the suburbs, gramps is right - you really need something longer than the 70-200. If you think you can make do with the 70-200, and the woodland low light is a concern, I'd certainly think about the IS version.

[dr.bear]

You know you want the 70-200 2.8 IS. Click "buy now". Hurry.

[3oh6]

keep in mind, if your using a tri-pod/monopod then spending the extra coin for the IS is pretty much a waste of money. there is the mode for panning, but generally it wont assist much in that situation. if you will be doing handheld shooting with the lense, the IS can save a lot of shots when light is gonna factor in.

as for f/2.8 vs f/4...no brainer, 2.8 all the way if you can afford it. if not, the 4 is a very nice alternative. dont even factor in the weight of the 2.8 vs the 4 as IMO you will eventually build up the muscles that may fatigue in the beginning (if there even is any fatigue when you first get it), the 2.8 isn't really that heavy in the end. i have shot many a day long amatuer basketball tourneys with the 2.8IS and after a couple weekends your body adjusts and personally i like the weight of the 2.8IS, gives a nice solid steady feel to it when handheld shooting. and as dr.bear above said...
You know you want the 70-200 2.8 IS. Click "buy now". Hurry.;)

[RichardtheSane]

Just to add to this, if you plan on using it for wildlife, get a 2.8 and if you can afford IS it really is very hand even on a tripod.

You can also get the 1.4x convertor and have a 280mm F4 lens

Just a thought

[khiromu]

I have F4 and IS. Both lenses at wide open, F4 at F4 performs better than IS at F2.8 (at least my lenses). But having F2.8 AND IS is a big plus to me. If I can only keep one lens, I would keep IS version.

[loebas]

Thank for all the replies. As my main goal is wildlife photography i consider the 100-400 lens as the one to have.
It will cost a lot of money but I wonder how it performs on a 300D.
Can anyone post some links or phots taken with the above combination ?

[ingouk]

not exactly wildlife photos but these photos were taken with my canon300D and a 100-400
http://photos.ibosse.org/index.php?list=Airshows/Shoreham-by-sea%20Airshow

hope it helps

[Kenski]

I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 100-400 on the 300D and the both perfom EXECELLENT on the 300D... Don't worry about it... Of course they would perform better on the 20D but oh well.. :)