EF70-200mm L f/4 IS vs EF70-200mm L 2.8

Firstly, I apologise if this has been asked before. I have searched and couldn't find anything.

I curious why someone would choose the heavier more expensive lens over the IS f/4? With the IS wouldn't you actually be able to use it effectively in even less light than the unstabilized f2.8?

wow! another one of these 70-200 posts... :P

even with IS, you can't stop motion...for that you need the faster lens, hence the 2.8

Will you be shooting inside or outside?

IS helps you stabilise the camera to reduce shake. This means that you can hand hold up to 4 stops slower than you might with an unstabilised lens - very handy for a static scene/subject. However, IS does nothing to freeze motion in your subject - sports for example - so it isn't a magic bullet for all situations.

On the other hand, f/2.8....

1. allows the use of a higher shutter speed, which will both reduce camera shake and help freeze subject motion.

2. allows the higher precision focus sensors to operate within cameras that can take advantage of such things (all of them?) and may also make manual focusing easier.

3. gives you more creative control over DOF.

4. gives a brighter image in the viewfinder.

The ideal solution in terms of capability and flexibility is the f/2.8 IS lens (that's the one I have) which gives you the best of both worlds but at a cost in terms of price, size and weight. Some people are prepared to pay that cost. Others aren't. For some applications - weddings, for example - you really need f/2.8 and IS with this type of lens.

KimLeece wrote in post #6545485
With the IS wouldn't you actually be able to use it effectively in even less light than the unstabilized f2.8?

Only if the subject is still. In less than optimal light, a correct exposure over here would be ISO800, f/4 and 1/15 - 1/30. Not many people stand so still

sol95 wrote in post #6545508
wow! another one of these 70-200 posts... :P

even with IS, you can't stop motion...for that you need the faster lens, hence the 2.8

Ok....but that's really only applicable to those who shoot a lot of motion...like sports and stuff in the evening, or dark halls etc. It's a big price difference if you don't though. Otherwise you can take the time penalty and rely on the IS to bring it 3 stops up.

KimLeece wrote in post #6545539
Ok....but that's really only applicable to those who shoot a lot of motion...like sports and stuff in the evening, or dark halls etc. It's a big price difference if you don't though. Otherwise you can take the time penalty and rely on the IS to bring it 3 stops up.

that's why you need to consider what you'll be shooting and choose your tool accordingly

you don't just jump in and get what's the most expensive, simply equating price with quality

if you don't need the faster 2.8 for what you shoot, then by all means go for the 4

I posed a similar question since I'm looking for what you want:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=588691

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=589261

verdantsound wrote in post #6545557
I posed a similar question since I'm looking for what you want:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=588691

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=589261

Thanks for the links. My search didn't find them. (I don't know why..)

I chose the f4is over the 2.8non. I don't do indoor sports so it don't bother me.

Plus the only difference between f4 and f2.8 is 1 stop, be it dof, ss or iso. I've got no problem using iso800 or 1600 even tho I rarely need above iso200. I think I've used iso800 with mine once and that was stopped down to f8 with a ss of 1/1000.

So if your going to be shooting pretty much exclusivly at 2.8 and need it then that's the best choice to make. I stop down quite often, so my choice was easy to make.

OK, there's your answer. Someone who is shooting lots of motion (like sports and stuff i the evening) would buy the f/2.8 version

KimLeece wrote in post #6545539
Ok....but that's really only applicable to those who shoot a lot of motion...like sports and stuff in the evening, or dark halls etc. It's a big price difference if you don't though. Otherwise you can take the time penalty and rely on the IS to bring it 3 stops up.

I shoot sports and I bought the f/4 IS. Sorry, but f/2.8 in my gym is NOT enough light to make it. For indoor sports, I'm using faster primes (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2) rather than the slow 70-200 f/2.8.

KimLeece wrote in post #6545568
Thanks for the links. My search didn't find them. (I don't know why..)

In the advanced search (click in the drop down search window) set it to search titles only, then search for "70-200*" (without the quotes). You'll get a lot of threads that aren't just this topic, but it has been discussed many times before...