What would you get? 70-200 2.8 or 4IS

Sorry if this topic has been posted, but I couldn't find one.

My next lens is going to be the 70-200 2.8 Non-IS. However I just read some reviews of the new f/4IS. All were raving reviews. I'm still leaning towards 2.8. What do you think?

shakin360 wrote in post #2258797
Sorry if this topic has been posted, but I couldn't find one.

My next lens is going to be the 70-200 2.8 Non-IS. However I just read some reviews of the new f/4IS. All were raving reviews. I'm still leaning towards 2.8. What do you think?

are you trying to start a war ?

when the battle starts raging just remember that most who say f2.8 made the choice when there was no choice .

ed rader

It quite often could depend on your style or intentions of use. If stopping action in lower lighting conditions isn't anticipated the f/4 IS would get my vote.

IS won't stop action.

if you are doing sports/wildlife etc, the 2.8. if you are doing things in better lit areas or that don't move, the IS

I agree. My understanding is that IS doesn't do a lot of good if your subject is moving. If you are more concerned with camera shake, go for the IS. I decided that f2.8 was more beneficial to me than IS.

I'm about to find out. I have both lenses in my possession right now, and it will be interesting to see how I fare with them. I own the 2.8L IS, and have the f/4L IS that I've bought for a friend who is currently living out of the country and has invited me to use it till he shows up for it next month.

If I really, really, REALLY like the f/4, I might just buy one. If it's a great lens, I'll haveto own one. I have the money budgeted for a 50mm f/1.2L, which I'm starting to have second thoughts on. My main objection to the f/2.8L has been size, weight, and the difficulty I have getting decent shots with it. (Not the fault of the lens....it's me.)

Someday, I'm hoping they'll bring out the 400 f/5.6L with IS. I'd kill for one of those.

Both are excellent lenses. I have the 2.8 and am very happy. I'm sure the f4 is excellent as well.

I should add that even though I have the 2.8L with IS, it is still a toss-up as to which I would prefer to use on a regular basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the two lenses with IS when the primary difference is one-half an f-stop.

As to the non-IS version, I think you might be better off with the f/4 because the supposed gain in performance is greater than the aperture difference between the two lenses. (in theory, anyway)

I would think with the f4 being so sharp and light...I'd prefer that one personally...I've had the 2.8 and didn't like hauling the weight around...

belmondo wrote in post #2258912
I should add that even though I have the 2.8L with IS, it is still a toss-up as to which I would prefer to use on a regular basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the two lenses with IS when the primary difference is one-half an f-stop.

As to the non-IS version, I think you might be better off with the f/4 because the supposed gain in performance is greater than the aperture difference between the two lenses. (in theory, anyway)

Isn't it a FULL stop from f2.8 to f4? 2.8 .. 3.2 .. 3.5 .. 4.0

I think for A LOT to (maybe) MOST people, the f4 IS is just about perfect. I think that the average user will shoot some action, but not primarily action. Bear in mind that I said AVERAGE. Everyone shoots a bit different, but for a nice middle ground, f4 will be 'good enough' for most people, since a lot of people don't even bump their ISO over 400. I would think that defeating ISO fears would be just as good as a stop built into the glass. If I remember right, the 2.8 IS weighs about twice as much as the f4 IS.

Personally, I don't think that 200mm is enough that I really need IS. That's just me. Sometimes I would like faster, but most of the time I would rather have the light lens.

I'm thinking that I will most likely use it for sports (indoor and outdoor) and a little PJ. I'm not worried about weight. If I had the cash I would go 2.8IS.

braduardo wrote in post #2258981
Isn't it a FULL stop from f2.8 to f4? 2.8 .. 3.2 .. 3.5 .. 4.0.

You, of course, are right.
I, of course, am senile.

It goes as follows: f/1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32

3.2 and 3.5 are partial f/stops.

Here's a good explanation (tedious, by the author's admission) http://www.uscoles.com​/fstop.htm

There are situations where I'd prefer one over the other and vice versa. Tough call.

belmondo wrote in post #2259107
You, of course, are right.
I, of course, am senile.

It goes as follows: f/1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32

3.2 and 3.5 are partial f/stops.

Here's a good explanation (tedious, by the author's admission) http://www.uscoles.com​/fstop.htm

My 300D goes by 1/3 stops, so I was just listing what it showed. The only time I get tripped up is on the fast end. Is f1.0 an even stop? If so, what goes between f1.0 and f1.4? F1.2 should be in there, but what's the other one?

I'm definately with you on that. Personally, I don't find that I need just one stop very often. Normally I want 2-4 stops if any at all.

The large end is f/1.0