70-200 ~ f/4 with IS or f/2.8 without IS

If your budget only allowed this price range, would it be better to get a 70-200mm f/4 with IS or get the 2.8 without IS?

I am currently pondering this very same conundrum.

I currently own a 70-200 f/4 non-is. I've only had it a week or so. WOW!! What an amazing lens!! It is amazingly sharp, autofocus is out of this world (compared to anything else I own), and the colors it puts out are gorgeous!!

I purchased this lens knowing it would be a stepping stone to a more expensive 70-200. My options when I upgrade unfortunately will not include the 2.8isII. My bank account just can't support this. So for me, I have to choose between the cannon f/4is, f/2.8, or the Sigma or Tamron f/2.8 stabilized versions.

From what I've been reading the f/4is is even better than my non-is, AND better than the 2/8is mkI so far as sharpness across the frame. I shoot indoor hockey, so I could use the 2.8, but even at 2.8 it's barely cutting it. The 85 1.8 may be better for me. In which case the f/4is may be a better route. My biggest concern would be getting the sigma or tamron versions and feeling like I had stepped down in quality vs. my f/4 cannon.

Sorry for the rant. I am still a ways off from having to make my upgrade decision but I wanted to share some of the things that have ran through my mind in considering the options.

You didn't leave us much detail as to what you shoot and with those details folks could much better point you in the right direction.

I will say this much. The canon 70-200 f/4 in both IS and non-IS is an absolute mind-*$%@. I'm sure many here have gotten to play with all kinds of L goodies, but for me slowly building a lens collection of only moderately priced lenses, the f/4 being my first L, my head about popped the hell off when I saw the images in lightroom for the first time. The f/2.8 is no less impressive, although it is a decade older in design and not quite the performer the new mkII is version.

Depending on what you plan to use it for, if you don't need 2.8, the f/4 will absolutely serve you well. If you need 2.8, the f/4 can't help you. I see you've got a couple primes, maybe go for the f/4 and rely on the primes when you need faster glass. Possibly add a 100mm or 135 or even 200mm prime down the road??

It depends what you are trying to achieve.

For me, I would get the f4 IS over the 2.8 non-is
- Superior optics
- IS is a must for me in a telephoto lens
- Using 2.8 at 200mm requires a bit of distance between you and your subject to achieve any reasonable amount of DOF. It is pretty rare that I actually use 2.8 on my lens.

On the other hand. The f4 can't do anything at 2.8.

I have no regrets spending the extra for IS, none at all.

I absolutely loved my 70-200 f4 IS. Tack sharp, great IS and amazing autofocus. The 2.8 non-IS is nice too but the f4 IS has better optics and is much smaller/lighter. That would get my vote unless 2.8 was an absolute must.

It depends on what you are primarily shooting. I've owned both and the 2.8 non-is is just as sharp as the 4 IS when they are both at f/4. Obviously the 2.8 can let twice as much light in and in certain situations, such as with fast moving subjects, IS has limited value. What do you plan to shoot?

Any one using the f4is with a Tc? How is it at max reach? Debating on that combo or the 70-300l

With a 1.4x TC its still perfectly sharp at 280mm.

But if you're planning on using it with a TC most of the time, just get the 70-300L.

I personally don't like using the 70-200 2.8's, they're too heavy. I tend to carry my gear around all day when I use it, so it must not be heavier than it has to be. I rarely ever find myself in a situation where 1 extra stop of speed would benefit me.

How about a used 70-200 2.8is? They are selling for decent prices

Shooting sports exclusively I'd get the 2.8, although I still find IS useful for getting AF right where I want it and f4 is enough light outside. I use it with or without a 1.4 TC for kids outdoor sports just fine although I sometimes would like less DOF for that (i.e. I probably would shoot at least some of the time at f2.8 if I could).

Overall, for my shooting I prefer slower zooms and faster primes. I hike quite a bit with my lenses and the 2.8 just isn't enough of an advantage to warrant double the weight.

The f4 IS is decent enough to use wide open with a 1.4TC (compared to the other lenses I have in that range).

For me in this focal range IS is a must.
I have both the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS II.
I would be very uncomfortable shooting the 2.8 without IS, knowing I could save for the IS option.
The f/4 L IS like many have said is razor sharp AND half the weight of the 2.8 option.

Ladera wrote in post #15933207
I absolutely loved my 70-200 f4 IS. Tack sharp, great IS and amazing autofocus. The 2.8 non-IS is nice too but the f4 IS has better optics and is much smaller/lighter. That would get my vote unless 2.8 was an absolute must.

I went through the same thought process and made the same decision for the same reasons.

dalto wrote in post #15933052
It is pretty rare that I actually use 2.8 on my lens.

It's pretty rare that I use anything else on mine. The quality of this lens at f/2.8 is THE reason that people are willing to spend so much for it.

Thanks so much for the replies. I would have jumped back in here sooner last night but my daughter got sick so.......

anyway, my main purpose for the lens would be child photography. Yes, some "sit here and turn this way" stuff but also turning them loose on the beach, for example, and seeing what could be had there. So there would definitely be 'moving targets' involved.

So, I'm trying to figure out which of these two models would best handle this type of job.

Moving targets in good light is no problem for f/4. In low light, quiet moments the IS will really shine.