canon 70-200 f/2.8 v f/4 (both is)

so i'm looking to get a 70-200 lens but i'm not quite sure which to get. i've been doing plenty of reading on the forum about this but i just got even more lost. i've read that the f/4 is the sharper of the two but is it really that noticeable? i like the fact that the f/2.8 is fast and i don't think i'll mind the weight, is it truly that much??

my shooting needs,
i like to shoot cars, my friend on his motor cycle, as well as night shots, so landscape, pretty much a little bit of everything.

and if you could actually respond with something useful besides, i have this lens and i like it.

thnx

Do you need f/2.8? If you do, then the answer is obvious. One of the downside of 2.8 IS is the weight and if you do not mind it, then I suggest get it.

Do not worry about the sharpness. I don't think you'll notice the difference in real life photos. I've tried both in a local camera store and for me, the bulk and weight of 2.8 is a disadvantage (and price of course but not so much since I am ready to shell out the extra cash) and I ended up with the f/4 IS.

The f/2.8 has a nicer bokeh though, IMO.

cheers

corinmcblide wrote in post #7243134
so i'm looking to get a 70-200 lens but i'm not quite sure which to get. i've been doing plenty of reading on the forum about this but i just got even more lost. i've read that the f/4 is the sharper of the two but is it really that noticeable? i like the fact that the f/2.8 is fast and i don't think i'll mind the weight, is it truly that much??

my shooting needs,
i like to shoot cars, my friend on his motor cycle, as well as night shots, so landscape, pretty much a little bit of everything.

and if you could actually respond with something useful besides, i have this lens and i like it.

thnx

I think we need an entire forum or sticky dedicated to just this topic.

In my opinion the two main considerations for you should be 1) do you need f2.8 and 2) will the weight bother you. Both lenses are sharp. You won't look at pics from the f2.8 and wish they were sharper. They'll look great. The f2.8 is noticeably heavier than the f4. I switched from the f2.8 to the f4 for this reason and because I didn't need f2.8.

I think if you are going to want f2.8 for stopping action or low light shots then get it. It will be heavy but you'll manage and it won't disappoint you. Its my opinion that if you don't need f2.8, then don't spend the extra money. The f4 version is an AMAZING lens. Its really about what you want and need. Good luck with your decision.

And I know there's a ton of them, but really, all the info you need on the two lenses has been hashed out in previous threads. There's a wealth of info in them.

I've no experience with the 70-200 f4 but i do have the 2.8 IS. It is a heavy beast, but its worth it to me because I tend to shoot in low light conditions with moving subjects (ie bands performing).

If you can deal with the additional weight I'd go the 2.8. The 2.8 is plenty sharp and the 2.8 will give you the opportunity for faster shutterspeeds.

IS is great to offset camera shake, but it can't compensate for the movement of your subject subjects as apeture can give you the shutterspeeds that will help you do this in low light.

ok, well i think i'm going to go with the f/4 but i don't want to end up wanting to go to the f/2.8

and as long as i'm here, i'm also lost and confewsed about tripods. i'm looking for a good carbon fiber tripod that i can travel with, as far as height goes, as long as it gets to 60" w/o extra extension. and with tri-pod heads, i don't even know. right now i have a POC dynex tripod that sags when i put my 30D on it.

thnx for your patience with me and my questions =D

corinmcblide wrote in post #7243252
ok, well i think i'm going to go with the f/4 but i don't want to end up wanting to go to the f/2.8

and as long as i'm here, i'm also lost and confewsed about tripods. i'm looking for a good carbon fiber tripod that i can travel with, as far as height goes, as long as it gets to 60" w/o extra extension. and with tri-pod heads, i don't even know. right now i have a POC dynex tripod that sags when i put my 30D on it.

thnx for your patience with me and my questions =D

Go with a Gitzo or a Manfrotto. Either way both Bogen brands make extremely reliable gear worthy of your equipment.

sounds like you need the 2.8 IS...I have both and they are both awesome lenses...just different beasts...the 4 IS is my walk around, sunny day lens, or anything that doesn't require lightning fast focus speed...the 2.8 IS is my sports and low light lens of choice...IQ wise I can't tell the difference...

the F4 is a great lens, and it's light. If you need the extra stop of light that the 2.8 provides get the 2.8. If not the F4 is excellent.

Everyone has pretty much said this but if you need a fast 2.8 tele, then get the 2.8, if you don't, get the f/4. Do you REALLY need the IS though? For the same price as an f/4is you could get a f/2.8 non IS, then pick yourself up a fun lens, or a teleconveter with the extra cash you save.

do i need the IS? well i'm not really sure...i was just going to get it just for the fact that it seems like it can be quite useful in some shooting instances, but i guess i'm not completely sure whether or not i do. any suggestions on how i would know??

I see no reason not to get IS, I had the non IS 2.8 and loved it but the weight of the 2.8 IS isn't that much more and is so much more versatile...

I understand your questions regarding this same subject. Do a search and you will see that I was asking the same thing. After reading all of the posts (which were very help full) I decided to get the 2.8. I went back and forth on these two lenses. What made the decision hard was they are both as good as it gets lenses. The final decision for me was I new there was going to be a time when I was going to be shooting in lower lite so I opted for the 2.8. It only took me 6 weeks on here reading to finally make my choice. What ever your choice may be, you can always sale it with little to no loss and try the other one. Good luck in your choice.

corinmcblide wrote in post #7246301
do i need the IS? well i'm not really sure...i was just going to get it just for the fact that it seems like it can be quite useful in some shooting instances, but i guess i'm not completely sure whether or not i do. any suggestions on how i would know??

Generally, if you're shooting subjects that are moving constantly [Wherein you NEED the fast shutter speed] or shooting from a tripod/monopod constantly, I'd say forget the IS

If however, you're shooting in low light, with some static/slow moving subjects [Where shutter speed is less important] or you do a combination, get IS

If I had the money, I'd probubly get the 2.8 IS, Sharpness does nothing if you cant get the shutter speed you need...and this is coming from someone thinking of saving for the 70-200 f/4L IS because he shoots his 200 prime at f/4 or 5.6 [or slower] 90% of the time because of depth of field...and because his subjects generally are stationary or not moving..and of course saving money as well!

But thats because I have the 200 f/2.8L prime, when I NEED the speed, I still have it....Unless i sacrifice it to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 or 180mm f/3.5 Macro or something [Given the shooting I do with it most, the Macro would possibly be of use to me more than the 200 prime at that point]

That said i change my mind weekly ;D

goose2 wrote in post #7246812
I understand your questions regarding this same subject. Do a search and you will see that I was asking the same thing. After reading all of the posts (which were very help full) I decided to get the 2.8. I went back and forth on these two lenses. What made the decision hard was they are both as good as it gets lenses. The final decision for me was I new there was going to be a time when I was going to be shooting in lower lite so I opted for the 2.8. It only took me 6 weeks on here reading to finally make my choice. What ever your choice may be, you can always sale it with little to no loss and try the other one. Good luck in your choice.

What is your verdict so far?

right now after reading all of these, i'm leaning towards the f/2.8 because i'll be shooting in low light a fair amount of the time and just to be able to have the speed when i need it. i'm still not sure if i need to go with the IS or not.