70-200 Help?!

Well its a lens I've wanted..For a long time...and well....heres whats possibly happening

I might have a chance to get a 70-200 of some kind as a late xmas/early birthday present, Now I kinda really wanted the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM but the thing is the place the person is going to do it from does not have the Sigma as an option, Im basically limited to this place (Dell for the curious)

I get an option between either the f/4L IS or the f/2.8L (non-IS) of course they do have the f/2.8L IS II and thats sadly not in the cards

I currently have an EOS 7D, 28mm f/1.8, Sigmalux, 15-85 and my 100L, I recently sold off my 100-400 because I quit doing wildlife/birds for the time being (I might go to a zoo sometime, I can either rent something or get a nice tcon) and I kept finding myself frequently using the 100-200 bits of it in many situations and wishing it was faster (For more isolation primarily)

Uses? Varied, Flowers of course are going to be one subject for it, As will portraits, and of course pictures of my dog and likely "anything else" i find to use it on...So you never know

While I really like the price to performance on that Sigma, its not in the cards -now- and while im intending it to be the next lens in my kit, I might not be able to get it till the end of the yearish.... So my thought is, Maybe compromise is a better option, I get something to use for now and can switch out later, having a lens -now- and getting shots with it -now- is probubly better than -not- having a lens

But I figured I'd pick you guys brains, What would you do?

I surely would pick the 70-200mm f/4 IS over the 70-200mm f/2.8

reason? well I hate not having IS at longer FL and not all situations will allow you to shoot at 1/400 or something FL even at f/2.8 so I would pick the 70-200mm...

besides, although I haven't used any of those... from reading it seems like the 70-200mm f/4 is generally sharper than the f/2.8 non IS version

Well..i guess my only worry with the f/4 is isolation, Can i achieve good isolation (IE better than i could do with my 100-400) using the f/4L IS?

If you get the 70-200 F4 IS now I would be surprised if you want to swap it out for the Sigma later. It is as sharp as a tack. I can't speak for the 7D, but on the 5D2 it wows me with its sharpness and the amount of clear, fine detail it shows.

L.J.G. wrote in post #13715604
If you get the 70-200 F4 IS now I would be surprised if you want to swap it out for the Sigma later. It is as sharp as a tack. I can't speak for the 7D, but on the 5D2 it wows me with its sharpness and the amount of clear, fine detail it shows.

Yeh, I know the thing is ace optically, my worry was primarily in "can i still achieve awesome isolation for portraits and that using f/4 on a 7D"

I have the 70-200 f2.8 non IS, and I have absolutely no complaints. I briefly had an older Sigma 70-200, couldn't tell you if it was any good, since it didn't work with my 30D.

KenjiS wrote in post #13715637
Yeh, I know the thing is ace optically, my worry was primarily in "can i still achieve awesome isolation for portraits and that using f/4 on a 7D"

just shoot your subject up close seriously, let's just wait for others to chime in

monk3y wrote in post #13715706
just shoot your subject up close seriously, let's just wait for others to chime in

I browsed the f/4L IS thread a lot..I quite like how a lot of the images come out, even from a 7D theres quite a lot of isolation and that...

So i pretty much decided, So now just come in and tell me i did the right thing :P lol

I've had both the f4 and a couple of the 70-200's (no IS and the II). for what you describe as your uses, I'd go with the f4 version. IQ on it is really exceptional.

So yep, Just ordered the f/4L IS Be here friday...

Looking foreward to -finally- having a 70-200

Congrats Kenji

Yep, congrats, you'll love it.

The f4/IS is a fabulous lens. I have never had a moment's regrets about buying mine. And when you are lugging it around, you'll appreciate the lower weight.

Re isolation: at 20 ft and 200mm, the DOF at f/4 is about 5.4 inches. At f/2.8, about 3.8 inches. at 50 feet, it's 2.9 vs. 2.02 feet. Personally, I can imagine possible wanting less DOF for posed portraits, but for candids I generally don't want less, and for the other uses you mention, I would definitely want more. YMMV.

paddler4 wrote in post #13715911
The f4/IS is a fabulous lens. I have never had a moment's regrets about buying mine. And when you are lugging it around, you'll appreciate the lower weight.

Re isolation: at 20 ft and 200mm, the DOF at f/4 is about 3.8 inches. At f/2.8, about 5.4. at 50 feet, it's 2.9 vs. 2.02 feet. Personally, I can imagine possible wanting less DOF for posed portraits, but for candids I generally don't want less, and for the other uses you mention, I would definitely want more. YMMV.

Yeh i was noticing that, the f/4 is definitely a step up from the..i think its f/5.6 or so i was using the 100-400 at at around 200mm, and it will focus closer (So better isolation because i can get closer) Plus the newer IS unit, faster focusing, etc...also im going to guess the 70-200 is probubly a lot sharper than the 100-400 is...

Im very comfortable with my decision, I figure if i ever desire extra isolation i can just go full frame

Congrats and wise choice, Kenji....I would have picked the same given the choice between those two lenses. Some have no problem with it, but I wouldn't ever own a long tele without IS. The f/4 is said to be very sharp and a great performer, I'm sure you'll love it.