IS or 2.8

I went through the same dilemma the other week...IS or 2.8...IS or 2.8...
I went with the 2.8, reason being is yes IS allows for slower shutter speeds and still get a steady shot...if the subject isnt moving. Since most of what i shoot moves, id rather have the extra stop than IS.

bohdank- If you were using the f/4IS your shutter speed would be so low that you would get motion blur...i dont know about you, but id rather have one SLIGHTLY out of focus face, than a shot that is completely unusable due to motion blur

KenjiS wrote in post #8634521
Only shooting still things..

Action, 2.8

Everything else, 4 IS

you better have a tripod if you don't have IS .

ed rader

mxracer535 wrote in post #8634710
I went through the same dilemma the other week...IS or 2.8...IS or 2.8...
I went with the 2.8, reason being is yes IS allows for slower shutter speeds and still get a steady shot...if the subject isnt moving. Since most of what i shoot moves, id rather have the extra stop than IS.

bohdank- If you were using the f/4IS your shutter speed would be so low that you would get motion blur...i dont know about you, but id rather have one SLIGHTLY out of focus face, than a shot that is completely unusable due to motion blur

Stopping motion is NOT the only way to photograph action.

Variety, including effective use of motion blur is a good thing to strive for in your photography, not something to fear.

You can usually make up for the difference in shutter speed between f/4 and f/2.8 with ISO. And with the newer bodies, the high ISO's are getting so clean that you will be able to work miracles.

http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157618​689695556/
This set was taken with a 40D + 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. Most of the shots were taken @ ISO 3200 and 1/800-1/1250. If I had a f/2.8L, I'd still be shooting the same speeds, but it would have been ISO 1600, so on my camera the noise handling would have been cleaner, but not by much. Mind you the event started at around 7:00pm and it was PITCH BLACK outside. The only lights used are the staging lights and their reflections of the snow lighting the riders.

I LOVE my 70-200 f/4L IS and would NOT trade it in for an f/2.8L IS.

ed rader wrote in post #8633992
the f4 IS has a 3-stop advantage over the f2.8. it is clearly the better lens in low light.

ed rader

no it's not.
keep in mind that the aperture (in a medium tele zoom like the one in topic) is crucial when the need of a fast shutter speed means taking the shot or pack everything and go home (because you wanted to save some money and got the cheaper but terribly wrong lens)

when the game becomes tough then the money saved could really mean having to change the line of business you are in. It may not be just about an hobby.

sometimes taking the shot is important.

the 70-200 2.8 IS has both, the 2.8 and the IS and the lens is not that expensive, all considered. Getting a cheaper lens makes a very little sense when the difference is only about few hundreds when you already have to spend more than a thousand.

saving that little money to get a lens with that huge limitation is not clever. And giving out an advice to buy it to a fellow poster only because you bought it is NOT a nice thing to do to a friend.

not nice at all.

you bought it and that's fine. Your maybe can afford to pack everything and go home without the shot (who cares? right?) because you don't have the right tool, but for others that may not be an option.

remember that there are other photographers, in here.

please

nureality wrote in post #8634777
Stopping motion is NOT the only way to photograph action.

Variety, including effective use of motion blur is a good thing to strive for in your photography, not something to fear.

You can usually make up for the difference in shutter speed between f/4 and f/2.8 with ISO. And with the newer bodies, the high ISO's are getting so clean that you will be able to work miracles.

http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157618​689695556/
This set was taken with a 40D + 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. Most of the shots were taken @ ISO 3200 and 1/800-1/1250. If I had a f/2.8L, I'd still be shooting the same speeds, but it would have been ISO 1600, so on my camera the noise handling would have been cleaner, but not by much. Mind you the event started at around 7:00pm and it was PITCH BLACK outside. The only lights used are the staging lights and their reflections of the snow lighting the riders.

I LOVE my 70-200 f/4L IS and would NOT trade it in for an f/2.8L IS.

when you need to dial up the ISO then (please believe me) the difference in terms of light (coming in the camera to the sensor or film) between a 2.8 class zoom lens and some cheaper F4 class zoom lens is huge.

huge

really big.

but you don't have to believe me actually: take Art Wolfe for example. A talented photographer by the way: he shoots 70-200 F4IS now. Because that little lens is sharp and small. But when the lighting requires F/8 or more. Because when the light goes down then the same Art Wolfe takes the 70-200 2.8IS out of the bag instead.

oh well

now Art Wolfe doesn't shoot sports at night in regular basis .... (but I do)

nureality wrote in post #8634777
Stopping motion is NOT the only way to photograph action.

Yes, i know a little motion blur can add to the pic buy adding a sense of motion. I often leave motion blur in the wheels and what not while shooting motocross, but you go too much and you just have a blurred shot thats garbage.

Also, say you are shooting people, at a wedding/party for instance. Yes with the f/4 IS you can get the shutter speed all the way down to like 1/15th sec...but thats too slow for people. Now, say you have 2.8, you can bump it up to say 1/50...no motion blur, you got a keeper (without having to jack your ISO way up).

Im not bashing the f/4 IS at all, its a fantastic lens but that doesnt mean it is always better than the 2.8 non IS. The 4IS is right for some while the 2.8 is right for others...it all depends on what you are shooting. Everyone shouldnt automatically say the 4IS is the way to go

the 2.8 IS is also ALOT heavier than the f/4

Surfnsun wrote in post #8634837
the 2.8 IS is also ALOT heavier than the f/4

true

and the F/4 is heavier than the 70-300IS

and so on

For me I rather choose is
Cause a lens on this range ( quite long one) I mostly shoot outdoor
And most of the time, outdoor means , plenty of light, thus for me IS is more important compared to 2.8
But if its on the wider especially prime lens, I would rather have faster lens compared to IS.

sethultimate wrote in post #8634806
when you need to dial up the ISO then (please believe me) the difference in terms of light (coming in the camera to the sensor or film) between a 2.8 class zoom lens and some cheaper F4 class zoom lens is huge.

huge

really big.

but you don't have to believe me actually: take Art Wolfe for example. A talented photographer by the way: he shoots 70-200 F4IS now. Because that little lens is sharp and small. But when the lighting requires F/8 or more. Because when the light goes down then the same Art Wolfe takes the 70-200 2.8IS out of the bag instead.

oh well

now Art Wolfe doesn't shoot sports at night in regular basis .... (but I do)

You aren't alone in this f/2.8-snobbishness.

Why don't you take a look at what my "cheaper f/4 class zoom" did in the PITCH BLACK night in February. The only downside to those shots is the ISO 3200. Otherwize its a great example of what f/4 can do with the right light. Dark and Night don't immediately mean "f/2.8 to the rescue" it still comes down to the same as always, enough light and ample DOF coverage for the shot.

I did not have the lens but was considering buying the 4IS, 2.8 and 300 4IS with all being equal in price. For my use I chose the 300 F4IS.
Everyone is complaining about this lens is better than that lens. Each person will use it different ways, so the answers are flawed. Referring to something as "cheaper" with connotations of it being inferior is just as bad as me saying "your photos are pretty crappy" in the case of what Mortar was asking in the first place.

mortar wrote in post #8633915
Hypothetical:

Lets say you have a 70-200F4 and were looking to upgrade. Would you rather have F4 IS or 2.8??

For sports the f/2.8 is the only way to go but for a walkaround lens the f/4 IS is a great choice. Before the f/4 IS came out I chose the f/4 (non-IS) over the f/2.8 or f/2.8 IS just because of size and weight.

Also, because the f/2.8 is pretty heavy you may find the IS version to be a better choice.

Just a couple more points to consider when chosing your lens....

Many canon bodies will lose AF ability at an aperture smaller than f5.6 - therefore an f4 lens may not have A.F with a 2x converter fitted. Info source Canon go to p2 for lenses and camera abilities.

F2.8 lens gives a brighter viewfinder.

IMHO, you'll need both 2.8 and IS. Frankly, 2.8 is still on the slow side. I struggle with it shooting events but its something I have to live with for the foreseeable future - at least until I have enough to get the 85 1.2L II. Does not have IS, but I can reduce ISO and the pics will be sharper.

After much consideration, I bit the bullet and went with the 2.8 IS. I do much indoor shooting - usually without a tripod - and having the flexibility of a long lens in low light with IS has been great. There were many shots on my 5D that I needed to crank the ISO to 1600 or 3200 on the fly that I would not have gotten without both the 2.8 and IS. I've never regretted the purchase.