IS or 2.8

I would go for the 2.8 version

I had the 70-200mm f/4L before the IS version was available. I was a great lens but difficult or impossible to use in low light.

I upgraded to the IS version of the f/4. Now, I have the luxury of never worring about shutter speed. I can shoot it down to 1/15 sec handheld with little problem.

Regardless of the f/2.8 you will still be limited to 1/200 sec or faster when handheld.

This is debated a lot here. You are not considering the 2.8 IS, I see. I had the f4 version for over a year and loved it. After deciding to shoot events at night, I saved up for the 2.8 IS and have never looked back. If you don't need that ability, shooting moving targets at night, the f4 IS is for you. I love both my lenses and have different uses for them. But if you are considering shooting without flash in the 200 range, the 2.8 IS is the best, so save for it.

All of this is lovely debate and advice. I have opinions on both sides of the fence, as I do use the 2.8 IS for wedding and event shooting, but hate the size weight for my everyday shooting and wish for the F/4 IS. You can read more about that here https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=749727

Really for this to be useful we need to know what the OP is looking to accomplish, and unfortunately they haven't chimed back in yet.

This debate has been going on forever here and elsewhere. For those that have either 70-200, the opinion will reflect what they shoot, how they shoot and under what conditions they use ther lens. The need for speed, DOF or lack of it, weight, size portability all play a role in the decision process. I am leaving out price since that has nothing to do with a lens's usefullness. It's not just about a 1 stop difference.

Wth that said, and to add a bit of levity and borderline snobbery i was at an event yesterday and I saw a few people with 2.8's (70-200's and 24-70's) all running around the front of the covered stage using a flash in the middle of the, cloudless, day to shoot some of the musicians (no serious DOF needed here, imo.) WTF.

PS If the 70-200 f2.8 IS was not as big and heavy as it is, I would be shooting and travelling with that that instead of the f4 IS. It would give me 1 stop. Would it save me, when I need saving, all the time, hell no...one stop more is not night and day, often, as some suggest.

bohdank wrote in post #8635885
PS If the 70-200 f2.8 IS was not as big and heavy as it is, I would be shooting and travelling with that that instead of the f4 IS

Sure, who wouldn't? for me the issue is that I'm shooting with the F/2.8 IS but I'd love to travel with the size/weight of the F/4 IS. D'oh!

It's not a "do'h" unless what I am stating is obvious, which it is

Adding 1 stop can only be a good thing but I find myself needing it so rarely that

the negatives, for me, swamp the positives for this lens. The f2.8 non IS is not and never was even under consideration.

If I REALLY needed somethigng faster, my money would be better spent buying a camera with 1 stop better high ISO noise performance. That way all my lenses would benefit.

My thinking works, for example, like this...Since the 7D's announcement, I am rethinking buying a 300/f4 IS for more reach and buying the crop instead and keep using the 70-200.

I have this "thing" about accumulating photography equipment. I stopped shooting in the 80's solely because my camera bag weighed over 32 lbs, if I recall, literally, becoming a pain, travelling. I'm trying to do my best not to repeat that

Rubberhead wrote in post #8635437
Regardless of the f/2.8 you will still be limited to 1/200 sec or faster when handheld.

While it's a general rule it's most definitely not an absolute. I've gone down to 1/50 @200mm(non-IS) while shooting a MMA fight that's decent enough for the web. I just try to wait for the moment of the strike to minimize the blur at that speed.

Here's two shots that I used the f/2.8 non-IS for that I could not have gotten with the f/4 IS.

200mm, 1/160s, f/2.8 at ISO 3200 on my 20D

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

The OP should just get the 2.8 IS and have both of what he wants.

That said, I occasionally think about dumping my 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I bought it because I could and it was the big daddy of Canon's 70-200 series. However, after using it for a couple years, I'm thinking the f/4 IS would be better for me due to the fact that I rarely shoot at f/2.8 and it weighs less. On the downside though, the f/4 takes a wacky filter size (67mm) and would require me to get yet another set of filters just for this lens. Right now all my zooms take 77mm and I'm liking that a lot.

nureality wrote in post #8634950
this f/2.8-snobbishness.

snob what?

I am a photographer, don't you think that I know the difference between a 2.8 lens and f/4?

what is this?

of course the 2.8 is better, of course

and that's out of the question

now get this picture (literally):
I need you to cover a soccer game, today: it starts at 7:30PM and will end at 9PM . from 800/3.5 to 3200/2.8 and from 1/1000 to 1/400 minimum
what do you do? bring the F4? and what about if you need a 1.4x or you don't want to bring the 300 or 400?
it's not about the ability to take a shot once in a while, it's about shooting or pack the lens and cameras and go home (or don't even go there in the first place because you don't have the lens for the task).

More light, more light!! I have used IS lenses and been frustrated since the shutter speeds for moving objects (my kids are in marching band) cannot stop the action. All my lenses are now f2.8. The 17-55 2.8 EF-S is 2.8 and it stays on my camera almost all the time.

If you are shooting action/sports then perhaps the f/2.8, but be prepared to use a tripod with it. For handheld use, the f/4L IS will be more useful then the f/2.8 non-IS. I played with a f/4L IS the other night and it's incredible how low of a SS you can go handheld!

I'd say the f/2.8 IS is ultimatly the best lens, but it's about 50% more money. You could buy a nice prime lens or 2 with that for low light..

DStanic wrote in post #8637438
If you are shooting action/sports then perhaps the f/2.8, but be prepared to use a tripod with it.

Have you ever used the 70-200 f/2.8? Yeah, its plenty heavy, but it hardly needs tripod (or even a monopod, for that matter). Especially for sports.

Sports = 2.8
Everything else = IS
IMO