couple of Q's on 70-200 F2.8 NON IS

Is there a difference through the years in these lenses? I.E: the later ones are "better, faster, stronger" kind of thing......or have they remained the same spec all the way through.

Are there any differences to the way the non IS and IS variants work, and or IQ for a given shot. Take hand shake out of the equation here. I see there is no non IS thread in the sample forums, this I assume means there is no difference in the lens besides IS, true?

Does the IS work in a panning situation? I like to shoot motorsports, fast moving stuff etc, will IS help me, or is it not used in this environment?

Given I seem to read most lens are sharpest one or two stops down from open, is it fair to assume would the 2.8 lens gives a sharper shot than the F4 lens if I shoot at ~F4 on the 2.8 lens? (hope that makes sense?)

What Fstop does the 2.8 lens seem the sweet spot?

And finally would you go the F4 IS or F2.8 non IS given they are the same price locally, and why? I only ask this last question as I'd like to hear why you would go a particular one as I will surely read something that I have not thought of yet.

And yes, if I could,I would go the F2.8 IS and be done with it, but that ain't going to happen for a while. It's a K more expensive than non IS and I'd like to spend that saving on a better mid range lens.

Any and all answers appreciated

had the same questions some years back, but since almost all of my shooting with the 70-200 is sports, went with the non-IS and got a very good used version. it's good, too, with the 1.4 extender.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
Is there a difference through the years in these lenses? I.E: the later ones are "better, faster, stronger" kind of thing......or have they remained the same spec all the way through.

The same for what I know. They did change the tripod mount at some time, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual lens.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
Are there any differences to the way the non IS and IS variants work, and or IQ for a given shot. Take hand shake out of the equation here. I see there is no non IS thread in the sample forums, this I assume means there is no difference in the lens besides IS, true?

The non IS version is a little sharper I believe, but they are all very good.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
Does the IS work in a panning situation? I like to shoot motorsports, fast moving stuff etc, will IS help me, or is it not used in this environment?

Yes, you can use the IS to pan.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
Given I seem to read most lens are sharpest one or two stops down from open, is it fair to assume would the 2.8 lens gives a sharper shot than the F4 lens if I shoot at ~F4 on the 2.8 lens? (hope that makes sense?)

Yes, the lens is sharper if you stop down a little, but compared to the f/4, I'm not sure. Don't be so worried about sharpness if this lens. It is just fine.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
What Fstop does the 2.8 lens seem the sweet spot?

Probably around f/5.6, but what is the point of spending extra for an f/2.8 lens when you shoot it at f/5.6?

pixelbasher wrote in post #7586957
And finally would you go the F4 IS or F2.8 non IS given they are the same price locally, and why? I only ask this last question as I'd like to hear why you would go a particular one as I will surely read something that I have not thought of yet.

Depends on what you need it for? A walk around lens for shooting still objects (f/4 IS), or a little larger lens to shoot moving subjects in low light (f/2.8).

You can also look into the Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L or even the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.

There is no difference between earlier versions of a particular model and later ones. They are all built to the same spec as far as I know.

Non-IS and IS versions should perform about the same in terms of IQ. The IS version of the f/4 model is a bit better than the non-IS version of the f/4 model. I hear the non-IS version of the f/2.8 model is a bit better than the IS version of the f/2.8 model. However, this is just splitting hairs. Once you get on the level of 70-200s, all of them are fine performers IQ-wise.

There are two modes for IS on both IS models. Mode 1 stabilizes handshake in all directions. Mode 2 will detect what direction you are panning along and disable that axis of stabilization. Use Mode 2 when you are panning for sports.

If you are shooting fast moving objects, you will need a fast shutter speed. IS will not help you in such situations. IS is more for canceling out handshake, for example when you are shooting landscapes in low light. It will not freeze subject action.

I do not think the f/2.8 model will be sharper than a f/4 version when both are at f/4. The f/4 versions are pretty sharp wide open. If you are really this concerned with sharpness, IQ, etc between these lenses, you should check out this site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=242

you can change the comparison as you wish.

I own the f/2.8 IS version, and the sweet spot seems to be f/5.6 to f/8. I am fine using it wider than that though, since it does not perform shabbily wide open. If you want visual comparisons of the different apertures and focal lengths, check this out:

http://www.dpreview.co​m …_2p8_is_usm_c16​/page5.asp

if you are on a crop body, you can check out the previous page of that review, it has tests of the lens on APS-C.

In terms of f/4 IS versus f/2.8 non-IS, here is what you need to consider:

Are your subjects stationary? Do you have shaky hands? Do you want something that is light and smaller? Do you want your lens to be weather-sealed (a non-issue for most of us)? Get the f/4 IS

Are your subjects moving in low light? Do you have steady hands or a tripod? Do you want to isolate your subjects better from the background (i.e. in portraits)? Get the f/2.8 non-IS.

Also consider the IS version of both the f4 and f2.8 are weather sealed.

Thanks everyone.
I know I'm going to be more than happy with either, but it's just me to ponder over and over, then after I made my choice think why didn't I just do this 2 weeks ago! I did it with buying the 50D over the 40D, spent weeks reading and thinking about it, and then one morning went and just bought a damn camera

I like the 2.8 simply due to the advantages to using 2.8 when needed. I also like the IS, but I can't have both.

How often am I going to need to be shooting at 2.8? Who knows? Sure, sometimes I will be shooting in low light, but other times no.
I used to have a fairly stable pair of hands, but as I get a bit older, I'm not so sure now when I hold my hand out and try to keep them still.

weather sealing isn't really an issue as far as water, for me goes but I'm sure handy for dusty days. As is IS........ Damn.........and there is the weight issue on those long days.......and the 50D is pretty good for high ISO........... BUT, I do want to isolate people in portrait type shots (as I did shooting my god daughter at netball the other day)

I think it's going to be another "go to the shop and make a decision on the spot" purchase!

Sfordphoto: Thank you for the link, great comparos in there, and thanks for your reply in general, very helpful.

Sounds like you'll always be second guessing yourself unless you get the 2.8 IS

I don't have a single answer to any of your questions, but I have a few pics from the 5D and 70-200 / 2.8L non-IS, inlcuding some fullsize pics wide open:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/70200

BenJohnson wrote in post #7591050
Sounds like you'll always be second guessing yourself unless you get the 2.8 IS

That's what I'm worried about You guys are going to get me in trouble, big time!

Joe, real nice shots. I just love how it isolates subjects at 2.8. I'm not going to get that kind of shallow DOF with the F4 am I?

F8 135 mm is this lens' absolute sharpest before image quality visibly degrades. That said you get some very sharp shots at f4 and 5.6, for sure.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7592554
Joe, real nice shots. I just love how it isolates subjects at 2.8. I'm not going to get that kind of shallow DOF with the F4 am I?

Thanks for the kind words. No, you won't get the same shallow DOF at f/4 as you will at f/2.8. Nor will you get the same noise at say, f/2.8 ISO 1600 vs f/4 ISO 3200 for moving subjects where IS is of limited use.

That said, how often do you need the shallow DOF of f/2.8 vs f/4 in the 70-200mm range? How often are you in a position where trading DOF for lower ISO is useful?

When you answer those questions, then you'll have a better idea on what you need. The purpose of my pics was to show the sharpness of the lens wide open and stopped down, although I need to put some fullsize stopped down pics on the page as well.

I have the 4/IS and both 2.8's (and just got a nifty-two-fifty for my honey).
Sfordphoto summed up the differences as well as anyone.
FWIW, sharpness is usually just about the last thing I think about when deciding which of these lenses to use.

This is the thing that's messing with my head Joe.
Not ever having used this focal length at 2.8 I don't know how often I will need it. I haven't even used a 200 at F4 yet, let alone F2.8! Sometimes I will need the bigger hole, other times it won't matter I'm sure. See here's the thing, you said you posted the photos to show me the difference in the sharpness at different settings, I thought they were all good in my eyes, which tells me I'm pondering too much!

I also think I am getting stuck thinking that in low light I will always use 2.8 to get me out of trouble, but of course the DOF will suffer and I may not want to go that shallow, in that case the F4 with it's IS would be better to me. And my 50D seems to deal with high ISO so much better than the old 20D I used to use.

I am trying to cover all bases with one lens, AND trying to save money, this is where the problem starts! If the 2.8 with IS wasn't so much more money, I would already have one and be done with it.
The problem continues as I like to shoot everything, so when people ask about certain circumstances, I can answer yes to all of them. I don't soley shoot birds, or motorsport, or kids, or partys, or landscapes, I'll take a photo of anything! And there's no real one thing that I shoot the most.

Borealis: I too am picking up a nifty 250 for a light zoom the missus won't mind carrying around, that solves the problem of the 2.8 weight issue.
As an aside, why would you want two versions of the 2.8 AND an F4? What would be your reason for taking one out over the other on a given day?

I appreciate everyones patient input here, I know I will be happy with whatever I buy, I just like to be sure in my head that when I hand over the coin, it's what I really want/need.

pixelbasher wrote in post #7593284
This is the thing that's messing with my head Joe.
Not ever having used this focal length at 2.8 I don't know how often I will need it. I haven't even used a 200 at F4 yet, let alone F2.8! Sometimes I will need the bigger hole, other times it won't matter I'm sure. See here's the thing, you said you posted the photos to show me the difference in the sharpness at different settings, I thought they were all good in my eyes, which tells me I'm pondering too much!

Quite honestly, people fret about lens sharpness too much. Now, that's not to say that sharpness is not important, but the sharpness is more a function of having the subject within the DOF and accurate focus than it is a function of the lens, at least for the lenses you are considering.

I am simply not a fan of people saying "this lens is sharp" or "this lens is soft" without posting images to accompany their opinions. The reason I am not a fan is that I've seen many images hailed as sharp that I considered soft, and many lenses derided as soft that I used and printed quite large with and had no issues. This is why I always link pics to accompany my opinions -- the pics put my opinion in context.

So, quite honestly, IQ is not the differentiator here. The considerations are size, weight, price, speed, and IS. If it were me, I'd do what I did an go all primes, since I'm a speed whore, the primes are smaller and lighter in that range, and I rarely have difficulty finding and framing a good shot at the focal length I'm using. But there are times I'd sure like IS.

Thus, based on what you've said, my best guess would probably be to get the 70-200 / 4L IS and add faster primes for the focal lengths in the range that you need (85 / 1.8, 100 / 2, 100 / 2.8 macro, 135 / 2L, 150 / 2.8 macro, 200 / 2.8L) if you find that you need speed on occasion.

Others, however, would say just to bite the bullet and get the 70-200 / 2.8L IS which gives the best compromise of speed and IS in the range. They will argue that it weighs less than the primes, but you don't have all the primes on your camera at once. So, your backpack is lighter with the 70-200 / 2.8L IS, but the camera-lens combo you're using is lighter with primes, as it is with a 70-200 / 4L IS.

All valid points, to be sure. But to me, the only times DOF "suffers" is when it's stopped down past f/2.8. : )

Fortunately, my photography is more narrow in scope. And for the times I delve outside my usual realm of shallow DOF kid pics, I have plenty of time to pick and choose the proper lens. It's quite rare that I find myself needing to be at 70mm one moment and 200mm the next. But for those that find themselves in that situation, a zoom is the way to go. And for those that choose the zoom, if it's a rare moment that you need f/2.8, then perhaps you might be willing to sacrifice those few lost captures for the convenience of a smaller and lighter lens for the rest of your shooting.

Well, I'm not patient -- just bored. : ) Basically, all the choices you're considering are outstanding. If you are not pleased with your choice, it's because you found you have specialized needs that you didn't realize you had.

I had a rethink of the things you suggested I answered before I make a decision. You make good logical sense Joe, and that's what has swayed me. I have decided to go the F4 IS. It's lighter, has the IS, and in the long term, I will go for a couple of 2.8 primes to cover the kids, indoors etc.

I will not need a nifty 250 for the missus either if I go this route, she should be able to lug the F4 around fine

now what size prime for std family indoor backyard stuff on a 50D? .........joking! I'll be back for that thread later

Thanks for the help everyone

P.S You're bored? It's obv. I have nothing better to do than bug you lot over advice!