Help please, I'm torn between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 2.8 NON-IS :(

I shoot a lot of skateboarding, car photos, portaits, and will be doing a lot of soccer this year. I dont really care about the weight. I will be shooting indoors with it also. I'm doing the photos for my highschools newspaper next year. I'm currently leaning towards the 2.8 and investing in a nice little monopod for it. If anyone has had any experience with these two lenses your advice would be very much appreciated!

jackkthemackk wrote in post #14640109
I shoot a lot of skateboarding, car photos, portaits, and will be doing a lot of soccer this year. I dont really care about the weight. I will be shooting indoors with it also. I'm doing the photos for my highschools newspaper next year. I'm currently leaning towards the 2.8 and investing in a nice little monopod for it. If anyone has had any experience with these two lenses your advice would be very much appreciated!

Go with the 2.8 non IS

regatta wrote in post #14640128
Go with the 2.8 non IS

You seem pretty confident with that answer, lol. Any reason for it?

I know nothing about shooting those subjects, but I would prefer the IS anyway, especially with a longer lens like the 70-200. You don't want to come home and find half your shots are slightly blurry because you didn't get the IS version.

I use the 2.8 non-IS and I love it. Upgraded from the f/4 non-IS and really like the extra stop. For what you are saying I would get the 2.8, I always say f-stop over IS.

For fast action, you want a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the motion of a skateboarder or soccer player. A larger aperture will give you a faster shutter speed, given the same lighting. IS, on the other hand, is good for still subjects, when you are forced to use a slower shutter speed. (Like a bear who is sitting still at sunset). If you want to shoot action IS won't really help you, 2.8 will.

I guess I just imagined skateboarders moving fast and pulling off sick tricks. The IS wouldn't really help with capturing that, but the faster lens would.

WayneHawn wrote in post #14640203
For fast action, you want a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the motion of a skateboarder or soccer player. A larger aperture will give you a faster shutter speed, given the same lighting. IS, on the other hand, is good for still subjects, when you are forced to use a slower shutter speed. (Like a bear who is sitting still at sunset). If you want to shoot action IS won't really help you, 2.8 will.

A lot of the skateboarding photos photos are done with several off camera flashes set up at around a shutter of 1/250(Give or take lighting conditions). A few of the skate photos are indoor, and also at night. Which is why this is such a hard decision

jackkthemackk wrote in post #14640246
A lot of the skateboarding photos photos are done with several off camera flashes set up at around a shutter of 1/250(Give or take lighting conditions). A few of the skate photos are indoor, and also at night. Which is why this is such a hard decision

See what happens when I try to offer advice about something I know NOTHING about? Good points, and good luck. I can say that I have the f4 IS and it is great for what I use it for, which is neither skateboarding or soccer. I do like the size and weight of the f/4.

go for the 200 2.8 prime. It contains fewer elements (about half, based on my memory) than the zoom so although both are 2.8, more light go though prime due to less loss though the elements

skycolt wrote in post #14640309
go for the 200 2.8 prime. It contains fewer elements (about half, based on my memory) than the zoom so although both are 2.8, more light go though prime due to less loss though the elements

They both f2.8, so how more light.

I would go for f2.8 based on what you planning to shoot.

Aperture is the width of the light path. so same aperture, same amount of the source light. The light also need to go through all the elements before reaching the sensor. Each element eats some light. So more elements, more light loss. That's why primes gather more light with similar aperture.

skycolt wrote in post #14640624
Aperture is the width of the light path. so same aperture, same amount of the source light. The light also need to go through all the elements before reaching the sensor. Each element eats some light. So more elements, more light loss. That's why primes gather more light with similar aperture.

So expsoure must be different with primes. Or different number of elements (based on the lens design) should mean different exposure.

F4 IS is sharper and generally produces better IQ than the non-IS 2.8. That said, since you'll be shooting indoors, you'll need the 2.8. So the F4 IS is out the window.

I agree with the 200 2.8 prime, but you might find the length limiting indoors or at a small skate park. It's a fantastic lens, but you probably need versatility here.

bobbyz wrote in post #14640805
So expsoure must be different with primes. Or different number of elements (based on the lens design) should mean different exposure.

In theory yes, but I didn't have the setup to test yet...