Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS Vs. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS

Right well i'm on the lookout for a telephoto lens to equip myself with and i've been looking at prices and i've found the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS for £565 and then the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS for £599 now upon first impressions I was thinking the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS for sure but now on reflection thinking about it, the added weight of it may cause the camera to shake more therefore getting more blurry images but if it was at 2.8 with enough light the shutter speed would be fast enough to sort this anyway.
So your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated on this matter.
If you are to suggest any other lenses my price limit is really £600.
Thank you in advance.

f/4 IS

NO contest - f/4 IS.

It depends what you intend to shoot. If you want to take photos at a dimly lit concert, where flash is typically banned, then I'd say the f/2.8. If you are going to take sports pictures at an indoor stadium (e.g., basketball/volleyball)​, then it's still the f/2.8. However, if you are going to take photos outdoors (like at the race track), then the f/4L should be sufficient.

Unless you're shooting sports or high-movement action, the f/4 IS. You'll get better handholdability, lighter weight, and most important: better image quality. The f/4 IS has the best optics of any 70-200 L, and probably the best optics Canon has ever had in a zoom lens. I am consistently stunned the quality of the output of this lens. I've tried some of the other 70-200 variants, and I owned the 80-200 f/2.8L for over 2 years, and the f/4 IS smoked all of them.

Jman13 wrote in post #4987147
Unless you're shooting sports or high-movement action, the f/4 IS. You'll get better handholdability, lighter weight, and most important: better image quality. The f/4 IS has the best optics of any 70-200 L, and probably the best optics Canon has ever had in a zoom lens. I am consistently stunned the quality of the output of this lens. I've tried some of the other 70-200 variants, and I owned the 80-200 f/2.8L for over 2 years, and the f/4 IS smoked all of them.

weight and hand holdability aside, are you 100% sure on IQ? I think with such high priced lenses people become biased to whichever variant they personally own, I know I am. I am just wondering if you you have owned all 4 versions, how much of a difference you could tell in IQ between them, and if you have any comparison shots.

the F4 with IS...loads of reviewers say it is one extraordinary piece of glass and one of canon's finest lenses..i have the non- IS version and really do get a great deal of joy from using it.

djthemac wrote in post #4987206
weight and hand holdability aside, are you 100% sure on IQ? I think with such high priced lenses people become biased to whichever variant they personally own, I know I am. I am just wondering if you you have owned all 4 versions, how much of a difference you could tell in IQ between them, and if you have any comparison shots.

the reviews and MTF charts say the 70-200L f4 IS is the best.....which makes sense because it is the newest.

ed rader

for sports photogaphy ( kids soccer, pankration...) I usually use a monopod or tripod, would you still suggest the f4IS over the 2.8?

djthemac wrote in post #4987206
weight and hand holdability aside, are you 100% sure on IQ? I think with such high priced lenses people become biased to whichever variant they personally own, I know I am. I am just wondering if you you have owned all 4 versions, how much of a difference you could tell in IQ between them, and if you have any comparison shots.

Indeed, to suggest that the f/4IS will "smoke" the f/2.8 may be a bit of over-enthusiastic hyperbole.

I recommend getting the IS at that focal length... If you can afford the extra cash, get the best of both worlds: f/2.8 IS

wickedik wrote in post #4987469
for sports photogaphy ( kids soccer, pankration...) I usually use a monopod or tripod, would you still suggest the f4IS over the 2.8?

im in a similar boat. i own the 70-200 f/4 IS.......awesome,,,gre​at for hand held sports,outdoor portraits,landscape,,r​eally anything except wide. the lens is unbelievable. it is my favorite lens by far and its on my camera alot.

i was playing around today with a 70-200 f2.8 on a monopad. the thing is definately heavier than the f/4,,but doable,,didnt try the (IS) version cause the store didnt have one. we are venturing off into wedding photography this year and im concerned about low light shooting in a church and indoor work. i have been advised that the 70-200 f/4 probably wont work,,so im looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 and putting the sob on a tripod for inside work. the question is,,just how much am i going to use the 70-200 for inside reach v/s my current 2.8 lens set up and primes. also,,,if im going to use a tripod,,im thinking the extra stops for the (is) is a mute point.

its alot easier and smarter to ask questions here and get accurate information,,,,,,espec​ially at the price of the glass. im looking at all alternatives at this point because there is no way ill ever part with the 70-200 f/4 (is) lens. the image quality is 2nd only to a prime.

wickedik wrote in post #4987469
for sports photogaphy ( kids soccer, pankration...) I usually use a monopod or tripod, would you still suggest the f4IS over the 2.8?

i've shot alot of sports in the past week. and i use the f4 IS. you can see an album in my signature and i have more stuff posted in the sports forum.

i bought the f4 IS because it was the lens i wanted....not to save money .

ed rader

Ok, 'smoked' might not be the right term, but several tests bear out my experience as well. The f/4 IS is the most impressive zoom I've used, and I've had experience with the non-IS f/4, the non-IS f/2.8, and extensive experience with the 80-200 f/2.8, which most people agree had as good or better image quality than the 70-200 variants. Not to say the others were bad...certainly not, but if you have an option, and you don't need the speed, why get a lens that isn't as good optically, especially when it's lighter and more hand-holdable too?

Photozone tests:
70-200 f/2.8L
70-200 f/4L IS

The f/4 IS beats out the f/2.8 by a good 100-150 lw/ph at pretty much every focal length and aperture setting. Wide open vs wide open, it's a butt kicking, but the 4 IS still outresolves the f/2.8 @ f/4, which is quite remarkable in my opinion. Add 4 stop IS and lighter weight, and I think that's a pretty convincing win, unless you require the shutter speed for what you shoot. If you DO require the shutter speed that only an f/2.8 zoom can provide, then it's a no-brainer for the f/2.8. If not, I think it's a no-brainer the other way, but that's just my opinion.

Oh, and here's a little test between my 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. Both are at f/4, tripod mounted at 135mm (well, 138 on the 70-200), mirror lockup with delayed shutter.

#1:

70-200mm f4is or 2.8non is

I also am under the same delema... I realy like the talk about how great the glass is on the f4is, but the 2.8 might be better for the action shots I do. If I shoot Motocross in primarly day time is it going to be an issue for that type of shots? I also shoot low light conditions, but will also be using a tripod most of the time and this would not be action. What would be the best choice for me? As I see it, with the IS on the f4 it is as equal to shooting with the 2.8 in low light conditions, right?

I will miss out on using the 1.4 and 2x extenders, but I guess this is okay on a well lit area bumping it up from f4 to f8.

I cant see spending the extra cash on the 2.8 Is because the Image is actually better on the non Is and the f4is ( this came from the canon rep), but is very minimal.

I also found a 70-200 f2.8 for 800 used (is it worth it?)

Is there any difference once you include the IS 4stop on a non-action shot?
That is the ?