Heard it before... which one do I get ??? 70-200

(This ended up a little longer than I had initially planned, so I apologize in advance...)
Ok, here's my dilemna. I'm looking at getting a 70-200. Price tag has got me stumped. I really can't do the F2.8 with IS so I'm looking at the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) vs. 70-200 f4 IS, mainly due to cost managability. Currently I'm using a 60D with 18-135 f3.5-5.6 with a monopod for equestrian competitions, little league baseball from the side lines, kids soccer games, travel, family, pets, and what ever else I can point it at. I'm thinking 70-200 mainly for the horse shows, baseball, and soccer games. I'm thinking larger aperture for some lower light situations together with the need for faster shutter speeds (indoor horse shows). My dilemna lies in which 70-200. The IS's are pricey but fantastic IQ. Winter horse shows (brrrr here in the north east) are often indoors under weird lighting, combination of filtered natural light, tungsten, and fluorescent, with dark and light areas. Horses are cantering and jumping so a little more shutter speed works best. Outside shows often require a little more ability to reach out than I currently have. My 18-135 on AUTO ISO often wants ISO set on 3200 for a 1/200 or faster shutter speed with wide open aperture. I'm thinking a larger aperture would let me lower my ISO for better IQ, but will I be ok without IS? Ideally I'd love the 2.8 with IS. The f4 will let me shoot faster because of the IS, but smaller aperature. Am I really much better off than my 18-135? For baseball, the action might need to be a bit faster, but at least it's outdoors in the daytime. Do I go for the f2.8 non-IS or f4 with IS (or save my pennies and get a used 2.8 with IS). I'm sure there are opinions out there. SO BRING 'EM !!!

Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS or Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. Both are around the same price as the Canon 2.8 non IS and f4 IS, both have stabilizer AND 2.8.

My vote's for Sigma 70-200 OS. I have it and I love it. It's nearly as sharp as the mark II and sharper than Canon Mark I. The OS just works and the price is also reasonable for what you get.

I don't know about the venues you shoot in for horses shows indoors, but I often go to the national Western Stock show here in Denver, and 2.8 doesn't cut it on crop. I am using my 85/1.8 for that. Maybe with the better high ISO noise performance of a 6D or 5D3, you could get away with 2.8, but not crop. You may want to think about getting the f4 IS for the outdoor stuff to save on weight and add a cheaper 85/1.8 or 100/2 for the indoors action.

FEChariot wrote in post #15655096
I don't know about the venues you shoot in for horses shows indoors, but I often go to the national Western Stock show here in Denver, and 2.8 doesn't cut it on crop. I am using my 85/1.8 for that. Maybe with the better high ISO noise performance of a 6D or 5D3, you could get away with 2.8, but not crop. You may want to think about getting the f4 IS for the outdoor stuff to save on weight and add a cheaper 85/1.8 or 100/2 for the indoors action.

This seems on track to me. Lots of indoor arenas are just not zoom friendly.

I'd recommend a lens with IS if you can. The Sigma recommended by other posters might be a good choice. Be aware that the f2.8 lenses are very large beasts, much heavier than the f4 IS. If you're using a monopod, this might not be a factor. The weight doesn't bother some people but it did bother me; I sold my Sigma f2.8 and replaced it with a Canon f4 IS - and am much happier. However, I don't shoot indoor sports ...

I originally bought my f2.8 because I wanted to photograph indoor dog agility, but it turned out not to be fast enough for some of the locations, which are really dark with weird lighting conditions. The only thing that worked well for me was a fast prime. If you're able to rent or borrow a f2.8 lens before buying, you might want to try it out to see whether or not you're getting the shutter speeds you need.

Sirrith wrote in post #15654984
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS or Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. Both are around the same price as the Canon 2.8 non IS and f4 IS, both have stabilizer AND 2.8.

might be a good option but be forewarned that while the IS is nice to have, if the lens doesn't track, the IS is worthless. I've owned all three Canon 70-200 f/2.8's and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS so I speak from personal experience only but as a sports guy, I must have consistent and accurate AF and the Sigma did not offer that (even after two trips to Sigma to have the issue worked out, both times came back "in tolerance" but unacceptable. I will say this about the Sigma, for still (or slow moving subjects) it was on par with both of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MkII's that I owned(own). Its that good. The IS in in the Sigma is also fantastic and much better than the Canon MkI. With fast moving subjects (especially when rapidly approaching), the Sigma just didn't deliver predictable results.

On the Canon side, obviously, the MkII is the benchmark BUT if I were going to get something other than that, I'd favor the non-IS Canon 2.8 over the IS MkI. My experience was simply that the IQ was better and AF more accurate. That could be a copy to copy issue but I know there are numerous threads here that corroborate my experience.

Last option would be to go with two fast primes at the same total price (the 200mm f/2.8 and either the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2). The 200 f/2.8 is a stellar lens and a steal at $550-600. AF is spot on and fast.

Good luck and I hope I made things clearer not more confusing.

Thank you, everyone for the great replies. I've thought of all of these options at one time or another but they've all left me with a scrambled head regarding which option to choose. Your personal experiences go a long way though. I do have the ability to rent so that will probably be my first course of action. I'm confident that I'll be able to make a good decision after your inputs and hopefully renting a lens or two.
Thanks again...
Pete

For me the option of IS is a must. The 70-200 f/2.8 is almost double the weight of the f/4 L IS.
Double the weight and no IS is not an ideal for me.
One extra stop in those lighting conditions may not be enough of a difference anyway.
So you probably can guess if I had to choose between the two, f/4 L IS would be my decision.
Also look at my signature to back up that claim.

I was recently in the dilemma of picking between the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii which is on slightly different grounds but I went about it the same way you'll probably end up deciding.

I shoot mainly portraiture but also wanted a telephoto zoom for any events or what not I would attend outdoors. So f/4 or f/2.8 hmm.. well first off the IQ on both those lenses are really similar (though you're looking at version 1 not 2). Meaning the only reason why I would need the f/2.8 is for the bokeh and one extra stop to justify the extra $1000. 1 stop of bokeh and light for a grand? No thanks, shooting outdoor events, I don't need the 1 stop and I don't need the extra bokeh. Easy decision.

Your case? Easier decision IMO.

F/4 IS = +3 Stops under low light, known to have better IQ than the f/2.8 mark i
F/2.8 Non-IS = +1 Stop under low light, more bokeh

What's more important to you, 2 more stops or slightly more bokeh? This is all assuming you're going all Canon, I have no experience with the Sigma telephotos but I'm sure they're great. If they have a stabilizer at f/2.8 and price/IQ are on par in the ~1000ish range, they'll make great options.

catchquan wrote in post #15657446
I was recently in the dilemma of picking between the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii which is on slightly different grounds but I went about it the same way you'll probably end up deciding.

I shoot mainly portraiture but also wanted a telephoto zoom for any events or what not I would attend outdoors. So f/4 or f/2.8 hmm.. well first off the IQ on both those lenses are really similar (though you're looking at version 1 not 2). Meaning the only reason why I would need the f/2.8 is for the bokeh and one extra stop to justify the extra $1000. 1 stop of bokeh and light for a grand? No thanks, shooting outdoor events, I don't need the 1 stop and I don't need the extra bokeh. Easy decision.

Your case? Easier decision IMO.

F/4 IS = +3 Stops under low light
F/2.8 Non-IS = +1 Stop under low light, more bokeh

What's more important to you, 2 more stops or slightly more bokeh? This is all assuming you're going all Canon, I have no experience with the Sigma telephotos but I'm sure they're great. If they have a stabilizer at f/2.8 and price/IQ are on par in the ~1000ish range, they'll make great options.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount. Otherwise I agree.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15657490
Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount. Otherwise I agree.

Haha I suppose I should have worded it in those terms :P For whatever reason I just relate "more" bokeh to "more" blur quality. Though one could argue more bokeh = more blur too considering f/8 has less blur while f/1.2 has much more blur. BUT thats another discussion anyways...

catchquan wrote in post #15657446
I was recently in the dilemma of picking between the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii which is on slightly different grounds but I went about it the same way you'll probably end up deciding.

I shoot mainly portraiture but also wanted a telephoto zoom for any events or what not I would attend outdoors. So f/4 or f/2.8 hmm.. well first off the IQ on both those lenses are really similar (though you're looking at version 1 not 2). Meaning the only reason why I would need the f/2.8 is for the bokeh and one extra stop to justify the extra $1000. 1 stop of bokeh and light for a grand? No thanks, shooting outdoor events, I don't need the 1 stop and I don't need the extra bokeh. Easy decision.

Your case? Easier decision IMO.

F/4 IS = +3 Stops under low light, known to have better IQ than the f/2.8 mark i
F/2.8 Non-IS = +1 Stop under low light, more bokeh

What's more important to you, 2 more stops or slightly more bokeh? This is all assuming you're going all Canon, I have no experience with the Sigma telephotos but I'm sure they're great. If they have a stabilizer at f/2.8 and price/IQ are on par in the ~1000ish range, they'll make great options.

bokeh aside, +3 stops of IS helps tremendously for portraits but is completely irrelevant for sports since shutter speeds of 1/400s are about the minimum you can tolerate. The +1 stop advantage of f/2.8 in that area is more useful than IS. Unfortunately, its all a give and take so I'd suggest picking a lens that satisfies what you'll be shooting the majority of the time.

I guess it wasn't the bokeh so much (although it's nice) that I was after but the ability to use the shutter speeds needed to capture indoor equestrian events with a reasonable ISO so as to reduce the noise, hence sharper shots, detail... makes me happy happy happy !!! Mind you, I'm not a pixel peeper but I'm just not getting the IQ that I'm happy with and I suspect it's because I've got no aperature to work with at the higher zoom levels, realistically probably near 5.6. The f4 has twice the area of the 5.6. Still thinking....

namasste wrote in post #15657907
bokeh aside, +3 stops of IS helps tremendously for portraits but is completely irrelevant for sports since shutter speeds of 1/400s are about the minimum you can tolerate. The +1 stop advantage of f/2.8 in that area is more useful than IS. Unfortunately, its all a give and take so I'd suggest picking a lens that satisfies what you'll be shooting the majority of the time.

Oh I just read indoors. Depends on what the OP is doing I suppose.

If you don't reckon you'll be shooting in the 1/50-/150 shutter speed range, I suppose the 1-Stop will help.. but I owned the 2.8 IS MK1 and was never happy with it (though I'm a pixel peeper). I've just found the f/4 IS to be a better value.