Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 14 May 2013 (Tuesday) 20:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 ~ f/4 with IS or f/2.8 without IS

 
daystar
Senior Member
Avatar
589 posts
Likes: 518
Joined Aug 2008
Location: East Coast, US
     
May 14, 2013 20:39 |  #1

If your budget only allowed this price range, would it be better to get a 70-200mm f/4 with IS or get the 2.8 without IS?


Nikon D750 | Nikon D7100 | 85mm 1.8G | 50mm 1.8G | 35mm 1.8G | Tamron 70-200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
carguy4471
Senior Member
464 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
May 14, 2013 20:57 |  #2

I am currently pondering this very same conundrum.

I currently own a 70-200 f/4 non-is. I've only had it a week or so. WOW!! What an amazing lens!! It is amazingly sharp, autofocus is out of this world (compared to anything else I own), and the colors it puts out are gorgeous!!

I purchased this lens knowing it would be a stepping stone to a more expensive 70-200. My options when I upgrade unfortunately will not include the 2.8isII. My bank account just can't support this. So for me, I have to choose between the cannon f/4is, f/2.8, or the Sigma or Tamron f/2.8 stabilized versions.

From what I've been reading the f/4is is even better than my non-is, AND better than the 2/8is mkI so far as sharpness across the frame. I shoot indoor hockey, so I could use the 2.8, but even at 2.8 it's barely cutting it. The 85 1.8 may be better for me. In which case the f/4is may be a better route. My biggest concern would be getting the sigma or tamron versions and feeling like I had stepped down in quality vs. my f/4 cannon.

Sorry for the rant. I am still a ways off from having to make my upgrade decision but I wanted to share some of the things that have ran through my mind in considering the options.

You didn't leave us much detail as to what you shoot and with those details folks could much better point you in the right direction.

I will say this much. The canon 70-200 f/4 in both IS and non-IS is an absolute mind-*$%@. I'm sure many here have gotten to play with all kinds of L goodies, but for me slowly building a lens collection of only moderately priced lenses, the f/4 being my first L, my head about popped the hell off when I saw the images in lightroom for the first time. The f/2.8 is no less impressive, although it is a decade older in design and not quite the performer the new mkII is version.

Depending on what you plan to use it for, if you don't need 2.8, the f/4 will absolutely serve you well. If you need 2.8, the f/4 can't help you. I see you've got a couple primes, maybe go for the f/4 and rely on the primes when you need faster glass. Possibly add a 100mm or 135 or even 200mm prime down the road??


Duane
GEAR - FLICKr (external link) - SmugMug (external link):p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dalto
Senior Member
Avatar
758 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Austin, TX
     
May 14, 2013 21:48 |  #3

It depends what you are trying to achieve.

For me, I would get the f4 IS over the 2.8 non-is
- Superior optics
- IS is a must for me in a telephoto lens
- Using 2.8 at 200mm requires a bit of distance between you and your subject to achieve any reasonable amount of DOF. It is pretty rare that I actually use 2.8 on my lens.

On the other hand. The f4 can't do anything at 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,184 posts
Gallery: 539 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 5106
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
May 14, 2013 22:10 as a reply to  @ dalto's post |  #4

I have no regrets spending the extra for IS, none at all.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8686142191_f34cac2a14_b.jpg

5D Mark IV~70-300mm f4L IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 21mm 2.8~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ladera
Member
124 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: California
     
May 14, 2013 22:36 |  #5

I absolutely loved my 70-200 f4 IS. Tack sharp, great IS and amazing autofocus. The 2.8 non-IS is nice too but the f4 IS has better optics and is much smaller/lighter. That would get my vote unless 2.8 was an absolute must.


5D Mark III / 35L / 24-105L / 600ex-rt

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bikeboyjr
Member
55 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
May 14, 2013 22:45 as a reply to  @ Ladera's post |  #6

It depends on what you are primarily shooting. I've owned both and the 2.8 non-is is just as sharp as the 4 IS when they are both at f/4. Obviously the 2.8 can let twice as much light in and in certain situations, such as with fast moving subjects, IS has limited value. What do you plan to shoot?


80D | 24 f2.8 EF-S STM | 50 f1.8 STM | 10-22 f3.5-4.5 EF-S | 17-55 f2.8 EF-S | 70-200 f2.8L IS II | 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II | 430EXIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hatallas
Member
Avatar
182 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Indonesia
     
May 14, 2013 22:48 |  #7

Any one using the f4is with a Tc? How is it at max reach? Debating on that combo or the 70-300l


7D | C: 70-300mn f/4-5.6L IS USM | C: 24-105mm f/4[COLOR="black"]L IS USM | C: 50mn f/1.8 II | C: 40mn f/2.8 STM | C: 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye | X100s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 35
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
May 14, 2013 23:46 |  #8

With a 1.4x TC its still perfectly sharp at 280mm.

But if you're planning on using it with a TC most of the time, just get the 70-300L.

I personally don't like using the 70-200 2.8's, they're too heavy. I tend to carry my gear around all day when I use it, so it must not be heavier than it has to be. I rarely ever find myself in a situation where 1 extra stop of speed would benefit me.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
4g63photo
Goldmember
Avatar
2,742 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2005
Location: SoCal
     
May 14, 2013 23:49 |  #9

How about a used 70-200 2.8is? They are selling for decent prices


-Fernando-
Gear List
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,715 posts
Gallery: 68 photos
Likes: 618
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
May 14, 2013 23:49 as a reply to  @ Hatallas's post |  #10

Shooting sports exclusively I'd get the 2.8, although I still find IS useful for getting AF right where I want it and f4 is enough light outside. I use it with or without a 1.4 TC for kids outdoor sports just fine although I sometimes would like less DOF for that (i.e. I probably would shoot at least some of the time at f2.8 if I could).

Overall, for my shooting I prefer slower zooms and faster primes. I hike quite a bit with my lenses and the 2.8 just isn't enough of an advantage to warrant double the weight.

The f4 IS is decent enough to use wide open with a 1.4TC (compared to the other lenses I have in that range).


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,054 posts
Likes: 181
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
May 14, 2013 23:54 |  #11

For me in this focal range IS is a must.
I have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS II.
I would be very uncomfortable shooting the 2.8 without IS, knowing I could save for the IS option.
The f/4 L IS like many have said is razor sharp AND half the weight of the 2.8 option.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mushy ­ peas
Member
48 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
     
May 15, 2013 01:48 |  #12

Ladera wrote in post #15933207 (external link)
I absolutely loved my 70-200 f4 IS. Tack sharp, great IS and amazing autofocus. The 2.8 non-IS is nice too but the f4 IS has better optics and is much smaller/lighter. That would get my vote unless 2.8 was an absolute must.

I went through the same thought process and made the same decision for the same reasons.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
May 15, 2013 02:59 |  #13

dalto wrote in post #15933052 (external link)
It is pretty rare that I actually use 2.8 on my lens.

It's pretty rare that I use anything else on mine. The quality of this lens at f/2.8 is THE reason that people are willing to spend so much for it.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
daystar
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
589 posts
Likes: 518
Joined Aug 2008
Location: East Coast, US
     
May 15, 2013 06:18 |  #14

Thanks so much for the replies. I would have jumped back in here sooner last night but my daughter got sick so.......

anyway, my main purpose for the lens would be child photography. Yes, some "sit here and turn this way" stuff but also turning them loose on the beach, for example, and seeing what could be had there. So there would definitely be 'moving targets' involved. :D

So, I'm trying to figure out which of these two models would best handle this type of job.


Nikon D750 | Nikon D7100 | 85mm 1.8G | 50mm 1.8G | 35mm 1.8G | Tamron 70-200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rubberhead
Goldmember
Avatar
1,899 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: South Carolina's Lowcountry
     
May 15, 2013 06:36 |  #15

Moving targets in good light is no problem for f/4. In low light, quiet moments the IS will really shine.


EQUIPMENT: 40D | Rebel XT | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS | EF-S 10-22mm | EF 28-135mm IS | EF-S 18-55mm IS | EF 50mm 1.8 - flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,170 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 ~ f/4 with IS or f/2.8 without IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is stracker01
982 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.