Which canon 70-200 did you choose and what do you shoot with it? Alternatives?

I'm very happy with the F4 non IS it's sharp and lightweight, great when shooting outdoors with good light.

When I shoot indoors, that's when I miss that extra stop of light.

So as always it all depends on what you shoot.

Thank you for all the great replies and insight.

The weight is not really an issue, I will always need IS and the extra stop of the 2.8. The II version is a bit out of my price range so instead of going through and buying lots of different lenses I will just fork out and jump on a 70-200 IS 2.8 when one comes up for a decent price. A new Sigma/Tamron 70-200 is about the price as a used Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 but the Canon will probably hold its price better if I ever do need to sell it even though the Tamron seems to come out on top on dxomark:

http://www.dxomark.com …_1027_483_318_4​83_222_483

Australian Ebay Market:
Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8
$1200-$1400 Used

Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
$1298 New (Grey Market Hong Kong) - $500-$800 Used

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM
$1179 New (Grey Market Hong Kong) - $500-$800 Used

Does Having a big white lens change how people react in the street compared to a black lens?

DesolateMirror wrote in post #17830518
Thank you for all the great replies and insight.

The weight is not really an issue, I will always need IS and the extra stop of the 2.8. The II version is a bit out of my price range so instead of going through and buying lots of different lenses I will just fork out and jump on a 70-200 IS 2.8 when one comes up for a decent price. A new Sigma/Tamron 70-200 is about the price as a used Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 but the Canon will probably hold its price better if I ever do need to sell it even though the Tamron seems to come out on top on dxomark:

http://www.dxomark.com …_1027_483_318_4​83_222_483

Australian Ebay Market:
Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8
$1200-$1400 Used

Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
$1298 New (Grey Market Hong Kong) - $500-$800 Used

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM
$1179 New (Grey Market Hong Kong) - $500-$800 Used

Does Having a big white lens change how people react in the street compared to a black lens?

The original 2.8 is a bit soft wide open. So if you have to stop down to f4 to get sharp, why not start there? Also the f4is and 2.8II have the 4 stop IS.

I chose the original 70-200 f/4 non IS mainly for budgetary reasons. It was my first L lens and I was able to get it used at a good price.
I mainly take it to my daughter's softball tournaments and shoot in (usually) good light, so the lack of IS doesn't bother me that much as I go for high shutter speeds to stop motion. That lens and my 100-400L are my main game time lenses.

The only drawback is when they end up playing late into the day (good for them, they're winning!) and the lights come on, the gear gets packed up due to the low light. Trying to stop action in poor light just doesn't work very well. That is where I'd like the extra stops. But overall, it's a great lens and takes fantastic pictures.

Alternative. 55-250 STM. I had a 70-200 F4 IS and kicked myself for selling it. It was my light travel zoom. The 55-250 is outstanding for price, weight and IQ.

The first 3 are from burst sequences. All images are sharp.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsht7zpj5y.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsgmsw9s1j.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsrn8xr2q9.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zps9xfrzcjy.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpstktkluqp.jp​g~original

I also have the 70-200 2.8 II. Awesome lens but I did OK with my 70-200 F4. Not the same bokeh but I never had any complaints. It is all about application, weight and how much you want to spend.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …DB0B1C001658.jp​g~original

I use the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM for all purposes where the weight is not an issue.
When travelling by air, for example, I pack the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM instead, unless there's some compelling need for the f/2.8 on the radar.

GregDunn wrote in post #17829825
I'd actually prefer a 50-150 for my crop sensor bodies, but since there aren't any, the choices are pretty limited.

I would love to see Sigma bring back the 50-150 f/2.8 as a Global Vision lens, I guess at that focal range and aperture it would be a Sport. It would be the perfect match for the 18-35 f/1.8 normal zoom and one of the 150-600's for those looking for APSC sensor densities. Guess it might be time to look for a good used 50-150 or one still sitting in stock somewhere, I think they only recently dropped it from the range.

Alan

I'd rather see them come out with a FF 35-70/2 or better yet a 35-85/2 to pair with the 18-35 or 24-35/2 and then come out with an improved 70-200/2.8 sport

Use the F4 on a 6D and 70D mainly for grandkids sports. I like it because of the IS, weight and price. Picked mine up used for $550 on CL.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here's a photo of my grandson on his 2nd birthday, with his favorite gift. Taken with 70-200mm f/4. Man I love this lens - great clarity, beautiful colors.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I purchased the f4 IS because I could not afford another $600. Overall I'm very happy. It's a damned fine lens.

Here is where it shines (for me):
Outdoor Sports, even with the 1.4x attached
Long hikes, the weight is a factor
All-day shoots, the weight here is a huge factor
The IS... strong on BOTH lenses. Just great stuff!

Here's where it falls short (for me):
Indoor sports with lower light
Exterior sports at dusk and evening
Indoor portraiture, bokeh just doesn't compare
You may want to purchase more lenses (like the 85 and 135)

Luckily I have two close friends that own the 2.8 IS so I do not feel like I have to purchase it when I can just borrow it every so often when the instance requires it.

What about the f2.8 without IS? Anyone use that in lieu of the IS, considering it's several hundred dollars cheaper? I am looking to start into some sports photography in the next year or so and I'm trying to figure out whether I should go for the IS or the non-IS version. If I do the non-IS I'll be able to afford a 1.4x extender as well.

My understanding is that IS is good to eliminate camera shake but doesn't help with moving subjects. For sports, shutter speed is going to be above 1/500 anyway so IS seems moot. Am I missing anything?

grazamataz wrote in post #17836139
What about the f2.8 without IS? Anyone use that in lieu of the IS, considering it's several hundred dollars cheaper? I am looking to start into some sports photography in the next year or so and I'm trying to figure out whether I should go for the IS or the non-IS version. If I do the non-IS I'll be able to afford a 1.4x extender as well.

My understanding is that IS is good to eliminate camera shake but doesn't help with moving subjects. For sports, shutter speed is going to be above 1/500 anyway so IS seems moot. Am I missing anything?

The 2.8 without IS is perhaps the softest of the range, especially wide open. Its an old desgn that been surpassed by improved design.

Good to know, thank you! I'll save a little longer for the IS version then.