EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM...is it worth it?

is the larger aperature worth it?

i mostly shoot nature, but a lot of it can be in the shade.

Yes! The IS version is worth it!

Very worth it. Try renting one for a weekend and see for yourself.

That's up to you. Many swear by it, but it's more expensive and heavy than it's f/4 IS counterpart.
So if you don't need the larger aperture then go for the EF 70-200 f/4L IS.

beaniebeagle wrote in post #8420235
is the larger aperature worth it?

i mostly shoot nature, but a lot of it can be in the shade.

I went to an event tonight with my 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 IS. I was stuck at 1600 at 1/60-1/80 while shooting at f/2.8. I didn't want to go to 3200 ISO because the image quality degrades massively on a 50D. With the 70-200 it would have been impossible, I would have had to be at 12000 ISO to get 1/100+ to avoid blurring.

I still got a lot of blurring, but the noise was somewhat manageable. I really hate the noise of the 50D anything past 200, 400 is "ok" but it really starts showing at 400, many will say 1600 is great and even as much as 3200 but I don't believe that. So that extra stop would been a big deal for me tonight. My 70-200 is night and day better image quality than the 17-55 f/2.8 but f/4 was just not good enough and luckily I was really close.

I still got blurring on the majority of the images but I just needed a couple good ones.

but 400€ for a extra stop....

Saxi I've just gotten my 50D yesterday and I haven't had any such problems with noise... I suppose we have different definitions of noise but ive done some test shots at 3200 and I wouldnt call them horrible... It looks way better than my 450D did at 1600 and pushed in post....

IMHO absolutely. It all depends on the type of photography that interests you. I went with the faster Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS version over the cheaper 70-200 f/4.0 L IS version.

beaniebeagle wrote in post #8420235
is the larger aperature worth it?

i mostly shoot nature, but a lot of it can be in the shade.

As a NATURE photographer, IMO, no... especially if you are doing a lot of hiking/climbing/walkin​g to get to your shots. The 70-200 f/4 IS is an extremely capable lens, esp. with its IS, and I would not have upgraded mine if I weren't shooting weddings in all sorts of variable light.

Don't listen to all the people drooling over the best and fastest... sometimes the weight tradeoff is really worth it.

All that said, if you just MUST, the f/2.8 is a great lens as well, but much heavier and a bit bigger.

I had the same dilemma a few weeks back. I was thinking of getting the f4 IS version but decided to get the 2.8 IS version instead.

Reason: I was gonna spend nearly 1000 euros on a lens and heck just get the best 70-200 variation. f2.8 IS.

Markitos wrote in post #8421751
As a NATURE photographer, IMO, no... especially if you are doing a lot of hiking/climbing/walkin​g to get to your shots. The 70-200 f/4 IS is an extremely capable lens, esp. with its IS, and I would not have upgraded mine if I weren't shooting weddings in all sorts of variable light.

Don't listen to all the people drooling over the best and fastest... sometimes the weight tradeoff is really worth it.

Agreed!

It is really up to you and depends on what you shoot. When my kids were in school and I was shooting a lot of softball the 2.8 was essential. f/4, no matter how many stops of IS it has, cannot do what 2.8 can to a softball. Now that all of my kids have graduated and I no longer shoot ball I have the f/4, works fine for what I now shoot. You cannot go wrong with either, just make sure you match the lens with your needs or you will be frustrated.

It depends how important f2.8 is for the duties that lens is going to be faced it.

I shoot a lot of shows under artifical lights. Yes, a f2.8 would make things a little easier (1 stop) but, at the same time, I'm often on my feet for 4+ hrs, (9 hrs recently shooting 3 events/shows), with a camera in my hand, usually with the 70-200 f4IS mounted. I would not do that with the f2.8 IS version due to the extra weight and size. Of course it is doable but I really do not like to suffer I carry a shouldrer bag with 3 other lenses, flash etc. that also weighs 12+ lbs without the camera and lens in it.

If the shots paid the bills, I would make every effort to use equipment that would give me a higher chance of getting the results I need... the 2.8 IS would reluctantly be in the bag instead of the f4.

PS: I've recently experiminted with using a flash, -2 FEC with really good results, in daylight events and night events that are stage lit. The integrity of the location lighting is kept intact and I can shoot faster shutter speeds. I'm going to be pulling out the flash more often in the future.

I shoot nature, and sometimes in the dark/shade.
I think the F/4 IS is fully adequate unless you're gonna be photographing in very windy weather (in such cases, I carry along a stick with a clothes pin on the end, and attach it to a flower to keep it still).

Some photos I took yesterday evening:
ISO 800 - 1/13th - F/4 - 200mm

In the world of zooms there is no substitute is only L lens I have busted my butt to get it and it is everything you ever knew you always wanted!