The lousy L bug, halp!?

there are other options:
http://www.borrowlense​s.com …o/Canon_EF_70-200mm_f4_IS
http://www.lensrentals​.com …oto/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is

Went from the Tamron 70-300 USD to 70-200 F/4 IS. Was like a whole new world opened up IQ wise, and also build quality, etc.

MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE LENS

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a gem of a lens. Light weight, sharp as a razor, great AF and super IS. The round aperture blades make it a beautiful portrait lens.

I can shoot in lower light levels with the f/4L IS than with the f/2.8L (non IS) lens.

I can carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 1.6x bodies at the weight of a single body and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lenses...

+1 ^ totally agree.

And I'm actually going to go against the flow here by saying I don't like the 70-200 f4 IS

I had one, I bought it before my non-IS, and while it was a great lens technically, I didn't feel as if it was worth the money, and I didn't "like" using it. So I returned it and got the non-IS, and that just further reinforced my opinion that the IS version is not worth the money. The difference in IQ is negligible, you aren't going to notice anything at all unless you pixel peep, and I know I got a "good copy" of the IS version. That said, the IS version's bokeh is smoother due to rounded aperture blades. The main - and IMO only - differences you should base your decision on, are whether or not you need, and are willing to pay roughly double the price, for IS and weathersealing. For me, it was simply not worth it.

Sirrith wrote in post #13341160
And I'm actually going to go against the flow here by saying I don't like the 70-200 f4 IS

I had one, I bought it before my non-IS, and while it was a great lens technically, I didn't feel as if it was worth the money, and I didn't "like" using it. So I returned it and got the non-IS, and that just further reinforced my opinion that the IS version is not worth the money. The difference in IQ is negligible, you aren't going to notice anything at all unless you pixel peep, and I know I got a "good copy" of the IS version. That said, the IS version's bokeh is smoother due to rounded aperture blades. The main - and IMO only - differences you should base your decision on, are whether or not you need, and are willing to pay roughly double the price, for IS and weathersealing. For me, it was simply not worth it.

+1... As I've said before... I would jump for a 70-200/2.8L (non-IS) before the f/4LIS... They are roughly the same price (used). I just don't see the f4IS being worth the money when you can get the f4L for about half the price.

If you don't need IS for lower light/slower shutter speeds, why pay the premium for it... If you do need to use it in lower light/slower shutter speeds, why not opt for a faster lens?

Numenorean wrote in post #13338613
You don't want the 70-200 f/4L IS


You want the 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Mark II.

Luckily I have the a few weeks to make my final decision, I'm not saying anything bad about the 2.8 IS or anything it's just twice as much and out of my mind.

70-200 f/2.8 no-IS $1419.95 - Used at same price as the f/4
70-200 f/4 IS $1349.00

I plan to purchase the lens new so at most I don't mind spending the little extra for the 2.8 non IS, however, I use my camera a lot indoors and barely outdoors for portraits....I use strobes of course so would it matter in the end for the IS feature or not? I mean I know I won't be able to shoot 1/20 shutter speed right? What's the safest slowest shutter speed I can stop to if I decide to go with the 2.8 non IS?

I would go with the f/4 IS. The IS can make a difference. I had the non IS 2.8 and your not going to be doing a lot of 2.8 with strobes, but you ss needs to be set no higher than 125 and with camera shake, it can make a difference. You may notice a suttle blur from camera shake with non IS as I did, but I didn't use strobes when I had the non IS.

Too bad you weren't in the market for a non-IS a year ago, I sold mine for $800.

Why would you need to set your SS no higher than 1/125?

nrowensby wrote in post #13342036
Why would you need to set your SS no higher than 1/125?

Well, I'm still new with strobes, but I'm sure you can go up to 250 but after that the shutter curtain closes too soon to allow the stobes to do their work. Yes there is Hypersync, but I have not been able to find anything that works with my Elinchrom BXRi 500s.

Got it... I was thinking 1/250 for speedlights/triggers I use... not sure about big strobes.

That said... Keep in mind that strobes have the tendency to stop-motion... Shooting at 1/125 in ambient light is a completely different beast than shooting at 1/125 with strobes.

nrowensby wrote in post #13342127
Got it... I was thinking 1/250 for speedlights/triggers I use... not sure about big strobes.

That said... Keep in mind that strobes have the tendency to stop-motion... Shooting at 1/125 in ambient light is a completely different beast than shooting at 1/125 with strobes.

agreed.

Back to square one in my head again...why is this so hard to decide, why did you make so many versions of this lens Canon..why??

..and then someone had mentioned the Sigma 70-200 OS to me in a PM...LJASLKDFJKLDSF