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

catchquan wrote in post #15658242
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.

I'm a pixel peeper too so I feel where you are coming from. You're exactly right, if you are doing indoor stills/portraits mainly, the F4 IS is spectacular. If its indoor sports, you'll need at least f/2.8. My experience with the MkI is like yours, I never liked it.

Here's one other idea... a 135 f/2 and 1.4x tc. Gives some flexibility, unreal AF and low light acquisition, bokeh that makes your jaw drop and is a stealthy little setup to boot. The FL is limiting for indoor portraits and chasing kids inside but its truly an awesome setup.

Having shot a number of indoor rodeos, I'll put in a vote for fast primes. I used the 100/2 a lot getting started. You have to plan your setup position because of the lack of zoom, but the focus was fast and accurate. I've not had personal experience with teleconverters, and I trust Scott's opinion, but I have heard issues with some teleconverters slowing down the autofucus in some situations. It might be worth looking into that before making a purchase.

lazer-jock wrote in post #15660706
Having shot a number of indoor rodeos, I'll put in a vote for fast primes. I used the 100/2 a lot getting started. You have to plan your setup position because of the lack of zoom, but the focus was fast and accurate. I've not had personal experience with teleconverters, and I trust Scott's opinion, but I have heard issues with some teleconverters slowing down the autofucus in some situations. It might be worth looking into that before making a purchase.

The 1.4 on the 135L does little or nothing to the AF speed at least on my 40D and 5D. Its a very nice option as the IQ is still outstanding.

en4h wrote in post #15654963
(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 !!!

Recall that there are eight 70-200mm lenses sold as new for Canon EOS EF-mount cameras, stabilized and non-stabilized, with varying features ranging from constant apertures of f/4 and f/2.8, and prices from US $700 to US $2,500. To make an informed decision you need to be aware of all eight lenses and their features and strengths and weaknesses. The decision may not be easy or simple.

You all are a wealth of wonderful information! I've touched on many of these ideas with the same 'give and take' position that namasste pointed out. But to have the backing of your experience speaks volumes. I just wanted to convey that I'm very grateful for all of your inputs...

- It sems like the 70-200/2.8 IS mk1 is OUT. General concensus seems that IQ not up to par.
- Seems like for my outdoor needs, monopod or free-hand, the 70-200/4 IS would be great, light weight and get the job done for under all 'normal' shutter speeds. The f4 will give me 2x as much light as my current f5.6.
- For the indoor equestrian stuff which is about 1/3 of my sports stuff, all indications point toward the 70-200/2.8 non-IS (1. because I can't afford the IS mk2 and 2. because I might be showing up at one of your front doors with my pillow under my arm looking for a place to sleep after my wife kicks me out for buying it anyway... ). 2 full stops beyond my current 5.6 lens (that's 4x the amount of light) would certainly help with low light stuff, but free hand at slower shutter speeds might be tough. It's a bit heavier, but that's not a concern.