70-200L f4 IS or f2.8 non IS

OK guys and girls, need some advice....

Just to start, can't stretch to the f2.8L IS

So it is between the f4 IS or the f2.8 non IS

To be used for Nature & some motorsport.....

Will also get 1.4 convertor....

This will then replace my Sigma 70 300 hopefully...

F/4 IS no doubt. No contest. Game over. Done. Finito. Sold. Buy it.

I disagree, I would and did get the 2.8, with the converter your still at f4 on the f4 your looking at 5.6 I shoot a lot of indoor sports and the extra light is important to me.

And the IS won't be helpful on a moving object it just helps you keep steadier.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=312575

Give that post a look. Lot's of examples...

Master Mason wrote in post #3141152
And the IS won't be helpful on a moving object it just helps you keep steadier.

Pure myth.

You shoot indoor sports on a tripod? F/4 and panning mode with correct iso will give you an excellent DOF. 2.8 and no panning mode is only one stop over f/4 with sliver thin DOF.

2.8. You're shooting moving subjects - IS won't help there. An extra stop will. The f/2.8 will also give you the improved center point AF sensitivity on your 30D. Either way you're going to be saving for the 70-200 2.8 IS soon enough. And if bag space is short, you'll be able to get a 2x TC on the 2.8 and still AF on the 30D out to 400 mm those times when you can't take the Bigma.

Largely depends on what you shoot.
If you had to put a percentage on each, what would it be?

I would imagine you would need the shutter speed for motosports, no?
On the other hand for landscape shooting, the f4IS might be a better choice.

However if you are always going to have ample light, then the IS probably isn't needed either.

It all depends...but I would lean towards the f4IS just because of its flexibility.

Just some things to think about...

PeterUK300 wrote in post #3141120
OK guys and girls, need some advice....

Just to start, can't stretch to the f2.8L IS

So it is between the f4 IS or the f2.8 non IS

To be used for Nature & some motorsport.....

Will also get 1.4 convertor....

This will then replace my Sigma 70 300 hopefully...

As with any lens, it's gonna' come down to what you're shooting.

If you're subjects are pretty stationary, the f/4 IS would be the way to go. If your subjects are moving, the f/2.8 is probably the ticket...

If you already have the 50-500 f4-f6.3 DG HSM, forget about the 1.4 TC and save for the 2.8 IS.

Thanks guys, quick responses...... I think it's a 70 30 split towards Nature photography......

Let me reiterate the increased AF sensitivity with f/2.8 lenses on the center spot of the 30D.

cosworth wrote in post #3141205
If you already have the 50-500 f4-f6.3 DG HSM, forget about the 1.4 TC and save for the 2.8 IS.

See I knew someone would through that in Decisions, Decisions

Just if you can increase your budget limit, then definitely 70200f2.8IS.

"OK guys and girls, need some advice....

Just to start, can't stretch to the f2.8L IS

So it is between the f4 IS or the f2.8 non IS

To be used for Nature & some motorsport.....

Will also get 1.4 convertor....

This will then replace my Sigma 70 300 hopefully..."
_______________

I think you'll have to boil your temporary priorities down and decide which of the features you'd need most and most often and where you can compromise.

1) IS - Surely shouldn't hurt you to have it, but at what expense or sacrifice? In this case it would be at the expense of having f/2.8 and what it brings to the table.

You mention "nature" as a primary interest. In this case, portability and ease of use are the variables. Would you normally use a tripod or monopod in your 'nature' shooting? If you need to shoot strictly handheld, then IS would be advantageous. If not, then I think it would be closer to a push between them as it is recommended to turn IS off when mounted on a tripod.

However, 'nature' can mean different things to different people, so without knowing precisely what your definition of 'nature' is, it's difficult to be absolutely sure which way to lean.

For motorsport, I know some use IS and others claim it makes little or no difference.

2) f/2.8 vs. f/4 - You can alway adjust an f/2.8 lens to f/4, but you can't get f/2.8 from an f/4.

Nature photography, in most cases, won't require a large aperture. But again, we don't know specifically what 'nature photography' means to the original poster. If it means mostly serious landscapes, then either one will be fine as most serious landscape photographers utilize a tripod for ultimate image quality. Again, if portablity and shooting without a tripod/monopod is a requirement, then IS is the choice and even more so if the requirement is handheld in low light.

For motorsports, the f/2.8 lenses will activate the high precision center AF sensor. Having shot motorsports with both a 70-200 f/4L and a 70-200 f/2.8L, I can tell you that my keeper rate with the f/2.8L is MUCH higher than it was with the f/4L.

I have not shot IS with motorsports, so I can't tell you for certain that it could overcome the advantage of the high precision AF sensor or not. But I will also mention that if I have found any weakness with a 20D, it is with the AF system accuracy in intense situations such as shooting sports of all types. It needs all the help it can get.

3) Size/Weight - Depends on how much priority you place on this. For some, it's priority # 1, others are not so concerned. Up to the individual as to importance.

Prioritize the diferent strengths and weaknesses for yourself. Get what suits you. The good news is you imply that this is just to start so that sounds like you plan to have the best of both worlds eventually making this a temporary measure so you won't be hobbled by lack of either feature forever..

Good luck,
Jeff

I suppose it won't help if I mention I am about to sell my 70-200/2.8 L IS now that I have the 70-200/4 L IS. DId you consider the SIgma 100-300/4? Great lens for motorsport.