Romax12 wrote in post #15455996
tom, thanks for uploading these images.
I can't really tell wheater I need F2.8 or the f4 is enough. I don't have a job (i'm 16)
so I only have like 600 bucks now. Is there any huge reason to pick up an f2.8 vs the f4?
and another question - what would you ay for a used 70-200 f2.8 IS version i (first version)?
i think that if the price is close to the f4 Is then ill pick up an f2.8 instead
Whether it is "enough" or not is something you have to decide for yourself, I can't help there!
One thing to consider though, is the size and weight of the 2.8 versions. They are virtually double the weight of the f4 lenses, and are extremely front-heavy on rebel-sized cameras. That is one of the main reason I stuck to the f4. Even on my 5D now I like the f4 versions due to the weight and portability (I take my camera hiking and travelling a lot, so weight and size matters to me).
If you think you'd be OK with the weight, and you can afford the f4 IS version, take a look at Sigma's 70-200 2.8 OS. That has better IQ than Canon's 2.8 IS Mk I, and costs the same. Also consider the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC. That is also a very good lens. Both of these are slightly more expensive than the f4 IS, but they have 2.8 if its what you need.
If money is a big factor in your decision, the non-IS is a very good lens to have. If you buy it used, you can sell it off for virtually no loss if and when you decide to switch to an IS or 2.8 version. I didn't find myself particularly limited by my non-IS, and only switched to the IS version because I found a good deal on it, and I need the weather sealing.