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

JNunn wrote in post #2273860
The price is high, I'll admit, but I paid a little less than $600.00 for my f/4 delivered...where are you seeing the f/4 IS for $1,800? Most places I've seen have at or under $1,200.

Sorry I had my pricing goofed up. It's $545 vs $1249. ( both f/4). It just makes me wonder if IS is worth $700? But don't listen to me. I have neither. I'm sure these are all great lenses and you love whatever you get. Hats off to you.

I went with the f/2.8, didn't really even think about the f/4 IS-- I shoot action/ people pretty much exclusivly.

edit: for sports? get the f/2.8 no question

shakin360 wrote in post #2259043
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.

Remember, the OP, is focusing on this....

Reefbone wrote in post #2274581
It just makes me wonder if IS is worth $700?

When would IS be used with the 70-200 f/4? What types of shots? How often? (etc.)

SoundsGood wrote in post #2274614
When would IS be used with the 70-200 f/4? What types of shots? How often? (etc.)

IS is used anytime you handhold a shot, any type of shot.

ed rader

JNunn wrote in post #2273843
For me, its the weight issue. Unless I was travelling to somewhere I'd need the 400mm length, I think I'd rather have the 70-200 f/4 with me. I say "I think" because at this early stage of our relationship, I haven't gone anywhere without my 100-400L.

Thanks I carried the 100-400 for 4 solid hours on its first production shoot today and it gets a little heavy at the end of hour 3. However, it's impressed me so much that I definitely want to keep it. Saw a couple of other shooters with 70-200's, including a new f/4 IS, but I was really glad I had the extended reach.

Then I came home and saw an ad in my mailbox for some gym... threw it in the trash; who needs gym, carry 5 pounds for 4 hours, and I swear my biceps are noticeably bigger than before the day began

ed rader wrote in post #2274634
IS is used anytime you handhold a shot, any type of shot.

ed rader

Any type? I thought it wasn't used for moving objects?

The wide end is f/1.0, f/1.1, f/1.2, f/1.4 to other end is f/22, f/25, f/29, f32, f/36, f/40, f/45, f/51, f/57, f/64, f/72, f/81, f/91 according to my instruction book.
The approximate factor between these is the sixth root of 2, or 1.1225.

I love IS, but I'll take pure aperture speed over IS any day of the week.

SoundsGood wrote in post #2275539
Any type? I thought it wasn't used for moving objects?

Oh lord yes,. you can most certainly use IS on moving subjects. IS simply does not help stop motion blur from the subject.

I would opt for the 2.8,a fast aperture offers more than just a faster shutter speed.

malla1962 wrote in post #2285144
I would opt for the 2.8,a fast aperture offers more than just a faster shutter speed.

---one of them being a higher price. For some people, there are tradeoffs, and the difference between buying the f/2.8 and the f/4 might also be the difference of getting another lens or not.

It's all individual. If you really need the extra light-gathering of the f/2.8, whether it's for depth of field or ego, by all means, get it.

belmondo wrote in post #2285165
---one of them being a higher price. For some people, there are tradeoffs, and the difference between buying the f/2.8 and the f/4 might also be the difference of getting another lens or not.

It's all individual. If you really need the extra light-gathering of the f/2.8, whether it's for depth of field or ego, by all means, get it.

You had to go and throw the ego word in there didn't ya

belmondo wrote in post #2285165
---one of them being a higher price. For some people, there are tradeoffs, and the difference between buying the f/2.8 and the f/4 might also be the difference of getting another lens or not.

It's all individual. If you really need the extra light-gathering of the f/2.8, whether it's for depth of field or ego, by all means, get it.

Actually, IS is more of a higher price.
The 70-200 2.8L by Canon goes for less than the 70-200 4L IS. Or if we want to find more differential, we can look at the 70-200 2.8 EX by Sigma. or f/4L non IS.

At least in this case.