70-200 f2.8 non IS or f4 IS

Interested in one of these for kid's sports. Mostly outside with the occasional indoor basket ball game. I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 i can use for basketball. Lenses are in similar condition and comparably priced. Which would you choose and why?

If it were me, I would (and did in fact) choose the f4 IS. Reasons: (1) Size and weight. I used to own a f2.8 non-IS and came to dislike the weight of the lens; it's a very large beast. I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just so I didn't have to carry it. I eventually sold it and replaced it with the f4 IS - and never regretted my decision. The f4 IS was small and light enough to carry everywhere. I could use it for hours on end. (2) The fact that it has IS. Not so important for sports, but for everything else, it makes the lens so much more versatile. My keeper rate, even in low light, went up when I got the f4 IS. Having tried the experience, I would not now buy another lens in this focal range without IS. (3) I originally bought the f2.8 non-IS because I thought I needed f2.8 capability for occasional indoor shooting. Turns out I didn't: f2.8 wasn't fast enough. And I didn't use the lens at f2.8 often enough to make it worth lugging the extra weight around.

I have since, somewhat regretfully, replaced my much-loved f4 IS with a 70-300L, because 200 mm turned out to be not quite long enough for the sports I enjoy shooting the most. I love the 70-300L - it's truly an outstanding lens and is perfect for what I want to do - but I wish I could have afforded to keep the f4 IS as well.

I went through the same thing back when I was thinking of buying my first L-zoom, and decided that the IS was more worth it. And I haven't tried the non-IS 2.8, but I have had my f/4 IS for three years now, and I don't regret buying it for a second. It's fantastic in my opinion.

It IS fantastic. If you don't need the speed you cannot go wrong.

If you do plan on using it for basketball, then the 2.8 will be better. However, for outside sports, you would not really need the 2.8 as much. You usually would not even use IS for sports.

Hard to say. Using it for sports usually the SS should be high to freeze the action so IS won't even be used. However indoor, the 2.8 is really helpful especially in a poorly lit gym.

For sports, you would probably be better served with the 2.8. IS won't be that useful except for certain panning shots.

IlliniFan99 wrote in post #16720595
Interested in one of these for kid's sports. Mostly outside with the occasional indoor basket ball game. I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 i can use for basketball. Lenses are in similar condition and comparably priced. Which would you choose and why?

If you will be shooting outside, then f4 IS all the way. In sunlight you can shoot at ISO 400 and keep around 1/2000 sec at f8. At f4 I'm at 1/8000 with my 60D and the 70-200. Under normal gym lights, it will require using a much higher ISO (can make it work at ISO 6400 - this might depend on the body you use), then using some NR in post, but it wouldn't be ideal if that was your primary usage. In your position, I think I'd prefer the versatility of the outstanding IQ and stabilization of the f4 and accept that I'd be a bit more challenged for the occasional indoor shot.

Wow. What a choice. I'd prefer the 2.8, but I can't hold 200mm steady enough for still shots without IS. I think if squeezed, I'd take the f/4 IS. Have you considered Sigma or Tamron f/2.8 stabilized lenses? I have the Sigma and think highly of it. Lots of folks who've shot the Sigma and Tamron say the Tamron is better.

If you are going to use for sports, it's a no-brainer. IS is not needed, so go with the faster 2.8.

Buy the F4 IS, then pick up a 85 1.8 for sports. 2.8 wont cut it in many school gyms unless you have a very high ISO camera.

I vote for the F4 IS - last year I tried the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 with VC, way too heavy, although it was a beautiful lens. The F4 IS is lightweight, sharp, great contrast and a joy to use.

IlliniFan99 wrote in post #16720595
Interested in one of these for kid's sports. Mostly outside with the occasional indoor basket ball game. I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 i can use for basketball. Lenses are in similar condition and comparably priced. Which would you choose and why?

If you use is primarily inside then get the 2.8. The others are right, the F4 IS is a better choice all around, but there is no substitute for lens speed with moving subjects indoors. The IS won't do a thing to stop the action.

If that not going to be your primary use seriously consider the F4L IS.

Tom

The f4 IS is a newer lens model and one of the sharpest of all the Canon 70-200s (second only to the 70-200/2.8 IS Mk II). The f2.8 non-IS is one of the oldest designs, and - many believe - the least sharp of the bunch. Of course, the Canon 70-200s are all very good lenses, so the differences between them aren't huge.

The f4 IS is also about 2/3 the size and weight.

But the f4 lenses don't come with a tripod mounting ring... that's sold separately. The f2.8 lenses come with a tripod ring.

I've been shooting sports professionally for many years. Have you ever seen the photos of all the big white lenses along the sidelines of professional games? The dominance that Canon enjoyed among professional sports photogs for a few years was largely due to one thing.... IS. Other manufacturers have bounced back a bit and their lenses have gotten back onto the sidelines in recent years largely due to one thing.... they've now incorporated their own versions of IS into their lenses.

It comes up every time it's discussed here.... Someone cites, "You will be using a fast shutter speed for sports, to freeze the action, so you don't really need IS". That's simply not true. For one thing, IS is effective even at higher shutter speeds. It helps stabilize the image in the viewfinder, which can be useful when tracking moving subject. And lot of folks also think it helps AF perform better. And, what about the times when you want to use a slower shutter speed handheld? Not all sports shots have to be done at high shutter speeds... In fact it can get pretty boring, freezing the action in every single shot. Sure, those shots are the bread and butter of sports photography. But it also can be interesting to do panning shots "dragging the shutter" at a slower speed.... when IS can be helpful. Finally, will you only ever use this lens for sports?

I shot for over 20 years without IS. Now I've shot for over 12 years with it. Whenever possible, on any lens 100mm or longer, I'd always opt for an IS lens over a non-IS lens. I don't find it nearly as essential on wider lenses, but certainly don't mind it, either.

Given the choice, I'd go for the 70-200/4 IS over the f2.8 non-IS. In fact, I use the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS.

Assuming you are using a crop sensor camera, often for indoor basketball a shorter lens is more useful anyway. I don't have the Tamron 28-70/2.8, so can't say how it performs. But the range of focal lengths should be pretty good for basketball, depending upon how close to the sidelines you can work. I agree that f2.8 still might not be large enough aperture. I'd try my 24-70/2.8 first, but also have a handful of fast primes ranging from 28mm to 135mm, that offer one or more stops additional light.

For outdoor field sports, longer lenses are often needed. I almost always use one of them and rarely use less than 70-200, plus often also use 300mm or longer on a second camera.

Amfoto1. Could not say it any better myself.