Going to Israel (A Clever Title for Another 70-200L Thread)

hey folks,

well I'm headed to Israel (in July) for a sweet internship that will be my last requirement before my Bachelor's degree.
As a student, I have limited funds. I think I can swing maybe $1200 tops.

I need a 70-200. I have a 100L Macro, and a 16-35L (/2.8).

My question:

70-200 f/4 (IS)
vs
70-200 f/2.8 (NON-IS)

What wins? The stablization or the extra stops?

Was the 70-200 f/2.8 IS version 1 any good?

What kind prices are we talking here?
Which one do you recommend? I simply cannot afford a f/2.8L IS II. They're just beyond what I can do.
So what's the runner up?
I apologize in advance for the question... I've gotten some google answers but it's hard to differentiate
between these models in search terms and have it be productive.

The Tamron and Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 are a lot cheaper than the Canon one and both have IS. I have the Tamron one and am quite satisfied with it. The extra stop is good in low light and you can get fairly cose up to things behind barricades and the like.

Which do YOU need more, IS or 2.8?

Personally I use 2.8 more than I would need IS.

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #17558255
Which do YOU need more, IS or 2.8?

Personally I use 2.8 more than I would need IS.

This is kinda what I'm trying to gauge, as well as whether or not each of these lenses is a sharp and worthy investment.

Here's the thing: It's been a while--a VERY long while since I've used a telephoto with out IS.
In fact, I consider that I really don't know what it's like to be IS-less past 100mm.
So mentally it's like "oh gosh a lens without IS?? No way!" But I recognize I might be over valuing the IS
feature on a lens. Maybe it's not nearly as important as I might be tempted to believe.

I have no idea what your shooting challenges will be. Heck, I'd lean towards the regular 70-200 f/4. With a 6D you've got ISO to spare. This lens is inexpensive, lightweight and makes wonderful pictures. If you later decide to sell it, you'll get practically all of your money back.

Are there specific reasons that you need a 70-200 of any variety? Or is it that you just want one? I was in Israel a few times, and I do not recollect a need for one. Of course I could use a telephoto if I had it with me, but there were not many occasions for that.

In any way for travel the F4 version is a better fit. The F2.8 is way too heavy for that, particularly that you would have to carry that weight under scorching 40 degrees C (104F) of Tel Aviv summer. And if you decided on the F4, and if you can afford the IS, keep in mind that the IS version is better optically than the non-IS one.

I picked up the 70-200/4 non-IS 4 or 5 years ago and absolutely love it for traveling. I've played with the 2.8 versions and they're amazing, but I don't want to be lugging that size and weight around. It should be noted, though, that I was either living out of a backpack or off of my motorcycle for months on end, so size and weight are important to me. There have been many times that I've wished for the IS version while traveling, and if I could afford to pick one up I would without hesitation. The f/4 IS version would definitely be my recommendation if you can afford it (and it looks like it's well within your budget if you pick it up used).

Jason

f4 IS. Stunning lens, and much smaller than the 2.8

Lbsimon:
Well I figured a 70-200 to have good value beyond the trip, and to be another tool in the toolkit I guess.
Also... I just want one. Seriously though, there's been a few times that I've wanted a longer zoom,
and I know it would get used beyond my news internship.

40C is hot... 'course, I live in Phoenix and we do see 48C or so every summer. Either way it's too hot!

So the f/4 IS is better than the Non-IS... that's definitely the kind of tips I'm looking for!
Is the f/4 in general regarded as superior optically to all but the /2.8 IS II?

jkdwings: so in your experience you'd rather sacrifice weight for the IS rather than bigger 2.8 aperture?

FarmerTed: Thanks for the f/4 vote! It seems like it's no slouch by any standard.

From what I've heard and read... the f4 IS is supposed to be the sharpest of the four Canon 70-200's.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is sharper at 2.8 than the 70-200 F4 IS and has less vignetting and faster AF as well.

I will say, I have gotten to use a f/2.8L IS II on several occasions and even with a 2X TC,
it's a monster rig in terms of IQ and all that. I have NO complaints about the $2,000 lens...
other than the "student" aspect of my life says I can't afford it. :/

I've never gotten to head-to-head it vs anything though.

Tamron lenses are very nice and sharp. BUT, I've ditched mine because I've found Canon lenses have better color contrast. It's subjective and more obvious if you do head to head comparisons, but I find Canon lenses have some better details with shadows in a given scene. I owned a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS awhile ago. It does have good optics (it's a great lens if you don't need IS). So I think it does boil down to whether you need IS. If you are going to be doing indoor shots with the 70-200, then I think the IS aspect is more important. I see you have a 6D, so F4 will still be shallow in many situations.

It was previously asked - what is you plan in regards to shooting?\


Despite what they show in movies, there are some inside and dark places in Israel!!!


but indeed if you will be outside, on the beach, in the forests, at the lake, hiking, etc etc etc
the f4 IS is more than enough
and I love the f4 IS - both the portability and the IQ is fantastic.

There have been excellent reviews though for the tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC and if you really want that f2.8 - i belive that some of the reviewers put the qual;ity on par with the f4IS

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #17559240
Lbsimon:
Well I figured a 70-200 to have good value beyond the trip, and to be another tool in the toolkit I guess.
Also... I just want one. Seriously though, there's been a few times that I've wanted a longer zoom,
and I know it would get used beyond my news internship.

40C is hot... 'course, I live in Phoenix and we do see 48C or so every summer. Either way it's too hot!

So the f/4 IS is better than the Non-IS... that's definitely the kind of tips I'm looking for!
Is the f/4 in general regarded as superior optically to all but the /2.8 IS II?

jkdwings: so in your experience you'd rather sacrifice weight for the IS rather than bigger 2.8 aperture?

FarmerTed: Thanks for the f/4 vote! It seems like it's no slouch by any standard.

Yeah, the size of the 2.8 is just larger than I want to pack in my bag. I mean, my camera gear already takes up more than the rest of what I travel with weight and size-wise. In terms of low-light shooting, I reckon the 3-4 stop IS is more valuable to me than the 1-stop aperture change. For instance, if the lighting only allows me to shoot at 1/60 of a second, I'm going to struggle to have no motion-blur at 200 mm. If I had the f/2.8 I could bump the speed up to 1/125, but that still might not be fast enough. With the IS, I can hand-hold that lens at 1/60. Just my thoughts, anyway.

I just got back from an 8 month motorbike trip down to Mexico and in that time I used my f/4L mostly for street portrait work and sports shooting. Sports were white-water kayaking, rafting, sand boarding, soccer, and the odd horse race. Honestly, the odd time that I wished I had 2.8 would not have justified the larger lens for the trip.

Jason