Wich 70-200 L

Well here it goes...

Main use Studio Work with Flash ...so my main aperture is f/8 - f/16 and main SS is 1/200 sometimes 1/160......

the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens non is goes for about 700
the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens IS goes for about 1300
the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens for about the same as above
the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Lens is out of the question too much money

since studio work is my bread and butter should i pay more for the f/2.8 non is or can i save and get the f/4 non is or stay in the middle with the f/4 IS ......

ok go

# 3

Main aperture is f/8-16, Get the f/4 IS, The f/2.8 ones will just be heavier with pretty much no benefit for you

KenjiS wrote in post #12454313
Main aperture is f/8-16, Get the f/4 IS, The f/2.8 ones will just be heavier with pretty much no benefit for you

That is what i think in my mind , but it's good to hear someone else say it ..... make sense ...thanks

now should i get the regular or the IS one ?

Domwolf wrote in post #12454334
That is what i think in my mind , but it's good to hear someone else say it ..... make sense ...thanks

now should i get the regular or the IS one ?

Well, IS wont be of much benefit in the studio, But for the times you take it outside the studio you might just find it handy to have...

IS cant honestly hurt in my opinion, Unless you're seriously hurting for cash id pop the extra for the IS one, its also better optically

Domwolf wrote in post #12454334
That is what i think in my mind , but it's good to hear someone else say it ..... make sense ...thanks

now should i get the regular or the IS one ?

IS one has higher IQ, higher than the 2.8 non IS.

Given that you use it in the studio and can't afford the 2.8 IS II this seems like a pretty easy choice.

#2, The f/4 IS version.

It has the best optics of the 3 lenses in your range and is significantly lighter and smaller than the 2.8's.

you must have a big studio to use this lens.
bokeh also won't make sense if you have seamless backgrounds. LOL

dalto wrote in post #12454709
Given that you use it in the studio and can't afford the 2.8 IS II this seems like a pretty easy choice.

#2, The f/4 IS version.

It has the best optics of the 3 lenses in your range and is significantly lighter and smaller than the 2.8's.

I Agree. Get the f/4 IS because it has better optics, not because it has IS.

PhilF wrote in post #12454798
you must have a big studio to use this lens.
bokeh also won't make sense if you have seamless backgrounds. LOL

Or he's doing product photography and simply needs the depth of field...

the f/4 IS still delivers nice bokeh anyways

Domwolf wrote in post #12454250
Well here it goes...

Main use Studio Work with Flash ...so my main aperture is f/8 - f/16 and main SS is 1/200 sometimes 1/160......

the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens non is goes for about 700
the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens IS goes for about 1300
the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens for about the same as above
the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Lens is out of the question too much money

since studio work is my bread and butter should i pay more for the f/2.8 non is or can i save and get the f/4 non is or stay in the middle with the f/4 IS ......

ok go

I think you need to tell us what other lenses you're using and why you're thinking about the 70-200 specifically. If you're shooting on a crop it's definitely going to be way too long unless you have an enormous studio.

Also, at f8 and upwards you're not going to see a remarkable difference (if any) in the L compared to other "lesser quality" lenses. I'm not sure what lights you are working with, but personally, I'd put the money towards quality lighting and modifiers - that will have a larger impact on your photos than the L.