AMD87 wrote in post #8917901
The thing is though sharpness is basicly everything to me and if i have to decrease the apeture to get a sharper image then it would be better getting the 4 IS over the 2.8 IS and if the light does get too less i still have change left over for the 50 1.4 which would suit it more?
The 2.8 would be really useful but if i cant get a sharp image < F4 i think of an advantage if i can get the f4 and 50 1.4 for the same price which would give sharper images in normal light (70-200) and lower light (50 1.4)
I think your shutter speeds were too slow in your sample images, and you're looking at shake rather than softness. The 2.8IS is - to me - a fantastic lens. I find it very satisfying to use. The wide aperture allows precise focussing, and it offers all the DOF control of a prime with the flexibility of the zoom. Yes, you sacrifice some sharpness, but what 70-200 2.8 allows you to do is get shots that other lenses won't allow. Like this one:
|IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!|
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO
I know you're (the OP) into motorsport. Check out my Doune galleries (like this one: http://giles-guthrie.com/gallery/20090621/
) where most of the shots are taken with the lens.
It's a banker. It's not the last word in sharpness, sure. But it gets shots that no other lens can. Check out the church shots in this set: http://www.giles-guthrie.com/gallery/20080920/
That's 1/30s, hand held, 200mm at ISO 1600.
Yes, lots of money, but worth it in my view.