70-200 f2,8 vs 70-200 f4 IS

which galss and why ?

pls discuss
---------------
sry about the topic if it already existed. could not find any.

Becasue 2,8 is still 2,8. If your subject is moving, you can have all the IS in the world, if you are one stop too slow, it will still become blurry. Also, DOF is better! What do you normally photograph? Do you need IS more than a larger aperture? Do you use tripods alot?

Klamber wrote in post #12097880
which galss and why ?

pls discuss
---------------
sry about the topic if it already existed. could not find any.

Which glass for what? What body? For what purpose?

Here ya go.

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

viktorsundberg wrote in post #12108194
Becasue 2,8 is still 2,8. If your subject is moving, you can have all the IS in the world, if you are one stop too slow, it will still become blurry. Also, DOF is better! What do you normally photograph? Do you need IS more than a larger aperture? Do you use tripods alot?

60D
events without flash - poker tournaments etc.
lot of movement around the targets, dark lightning ...
I am not shure which is best - wide aperture or IS

Tommydigi wrote in post #12108348
Here ya go.

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

https://photography-on-the.net …light=70-200+2.8+vs+F4+IS

thx! will read them right away

You already answered it. 2.8 is what you will probably need since you say dark lighting. IS cant stop movements.

But IS can stop camera shake. So, let's say shooting at ISO3200, 1/160s, f2.8.... Fast enough to stop casual motion but not fast enoguh to prevent camera shake. And if an F2 existed, it would not give enough DOF at 200mm, most likely,...so faster does not always mean better in low light. And IS is very useful in lower light when shutter speeds or on the bordeline between freezing action and freezing camera movement.

I would not buy a longer lens that does not have IS if you often shoot in difficult (lower) light levels.

^^ Agree there. I know cost is prohibitive for a lot, but for the situations you're describing the 2.8 IS is the lens you'll be needing.

Try out the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS its about the same price as the ones you listed, it has amazing image quality and the Optical stabilizer really helps out with camera shake in low light conditions. seriously its that good.

No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

cant really argue with that...always wondered about the sigma spoken about above also though.

bohdank wrote in post #12109042
But IS can stop camera shake. So, let's say shooting at ISO3200, 1/160s, f2.8.... Fast enough to stop casual motion but not fast enoguh to prevent camera shake. And if an F2 existed, it would not give enough DOF at 200mm, most likely,...so faster does not always mean better in low light. And IS is very useful in lower light when shutter speeds or on the bordeline between freezing action and freezing camera movement.

I would not buy a longer lens that does not have IS if you often shoot in difficult (lower) light levels.

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

I agree with you guys, that's why I have the f4 IS.

I only said 2.8 because he said moving subjects adn dark lighting, he didnt really say how fast and how dark. so i just started assuming. lol.

I think the 2.8 non IS is amazing but if I was buying today I would probably go for the F4 IS too.

paddler4 wrote in post #12109189
No, but a one stop increase in ISO can give you the same shutter speed, at the cost of a little more noise. The tradeoffs are pretty clear, I think. The 4.0:

--costs a lot less
--is smaller
--weighs less than half as much (heft one before you buy)
--costs you a stop

So my take on it is that if you really need the extra speed or shallower DOF, the 2.8 is the way to go, but if those are less important than weight and $$ for other things, it's a bad choice. I use mine mostly hiking or with flash, and I was not concerned about narrower DOF, so the choice was clear--I bought the 4.0 and have never regretted it. For other uses, it would be different. E.g., one person I know does a lot of indoor candids without flash. For her, the weight and $$ of the 2.8 is well worth it.

You are comparing quality with convenience. Why would you trade more noise for less weight? To me, that sounds illogical. Two of the variables you are comparing are related to convenience, one is a cost issue (which of course is important for most people). The only thing that really matters to me is if you need that extra stop or not. When reading Klambers desription of what he is shooting, it really sounds like an extra stop would be a good thing. However, poker is not really like boxing when it comes to movement, so maybe the IS would work too

I actually had the f/4 IS at first but after a few trips and low light wildlife photography I found pretty quickly that I really needed that extra stop. You don't always want to compromise with more noise either. So I sold it and got the 2,8 IS II. Ok, it's a damn expensive lens, but it is very good and I think it's worth the money.