Which 70-200mm?

Re: the Seattle shot... you shot an 8s exposure without a tripod?

Or are you just making the point (which I agree with, as I own the lens as well) that the IS adds a lot to the 70-200 F4?

I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 non IS and it is sharp, even viewing pictures at 100%, I was amazed with the picture IQ. Though I do wish it had IS as my hands aren't steady enough to use it handheld.

ericm678 wrote in post #15624911
not to hijack the thread, but i heard the f/2.8 non IS, isn't as sharp as the f/4 IS? but i've read the 2.8 is a must have for weddings which is what i have planned soon.

OP thanks for posting this, i was wondering the same things

The problem you will have with the non-IS is getting sufficient shutter speed to handhold even at 2.8. The 2.8IS is a reknown wedding lens, but if you are stuck with using 1/focal length x 1.6 on a crop body with the non-IS you may have issues.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15624880
Simply not true. The f4IS was canon's sharpest zoom until the 2.8 MKII was released.

the 2.8mk2 destroys the f4 IS for breakfest

I cancelled my order for the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L non IS.. I'm thinking of maybe buying the Canon EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS same price pretty much but with IS and a little more reach or just stick with the 70-200mm F4L IS.... I'm so confuse... LOL!

Trying to find the perfect lens is like trying to find the perfect camera bag. It's not going to happen, just look at everybody's gear list, there a reason they are all so big and growing every day.

I bought the 70-200 f/4 IS only because of my age (68) and it makes the difference for me in getting something in focus hand held vs the 70-200 f/2.8 I borrowed that didn't have IS. The lens is very sharp!

jonneymendoza wrote in post #15625757
the 2.8mk2 destroys the f4 IS for breakfest

Not in my experience. About the only difference between the two is that the 2.8II does 2.8. Otherwise, they are pretty comparable...

jonneymendoza wrote in post #15625757
the 2.8mk2 destroys the f4 IS for breakfest

And if its in the OP's budget then by all means he should get it.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #15625757
the 2.8mk2 destroys the f4 IS for breakfest

I don't know about that. The 2.8Mk2 is certainly the cream of the crop, but it is also bulky and heavy. To me, comparing the F4 IS and the 2.8Mk2 is apples and oranges. The F4 IS is light and compact. It can fulfil a very different role from the 2.8Mk2. There's room for both in your arsenal, I think, if you can manage the financial outlay.

Thank you to all those that have replied. After reading the majority of your responses, I think I have eliminated the 2.8 version due to bulk and the fact that I don't need the 2.8 since I don't shoot weddings or shoot in low light. Therefore, the extra money I spend on it will pretty much go to waste. If I shot sports or weddings in addition to landscapes/cityscapes, then by all means, the 2.8 would definitely be in consideration.

I think it now comes down to the f/4 lenses - either the non-IS or IS version. My gut is telling me to go with the IS version from the replies here, but my brain (and wallet) are telling me to go with the non-IS. Fortunately I have 3 more months to decide since I don't leave for Seattle until the end of May.

-Nick

nburwell wrote in post #15628167
I think it now comes down to the f/4 lenses - either the non-IS or IS version. My gut is telling me to go with the IS version from the replies here, but my brain (and wallet) are telling me to go with the non-IS. Fortunately I have 3 more months to decide since I don't leave for Seattle until the end of May.

IS makes the lens a lot more versatile. If it's in your budget, I'd highly recommend it. You're unlikely to regret having IS, but you may well regret not having it.