Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Sep 2009 (Saturday) 22:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

IS or 2.8

 
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
10,415 posts
Likes: 54354
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Sep 13, 2009 07:48 as a reply to  @ post 8635236 |  #31

I would go for the 2.8 version




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Rubberhead
Goldmember
Avatar
1,899 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: South Carolina's Lowcountry
     
Sep 13, 2009 08:01 |  #32

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.


EQUIPMENT: 40D | Rebel XT | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS | EF-S 10-22mm | EF 28-135mm IS | EF-S 18-55mm IS | EF 50mm 1.8 - flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,093 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Sep 13, 2009 08:17 |  #33

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.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, M100, M50, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Sep 13, 2009 09:42 |  #34

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.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 13, 2009 09:58 |  #35

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 ;-)a 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.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Sep 13, 2009 10:00 |  #36

bohdank wrote in post #8635885 (external link)
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!



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 13, 2009 10:15 |  #37

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

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 :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20DNewbie
"don't listen to me, I'm an idiot"
Avatar
2,732 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Massachusetts
     
Sep 13, 2009 10:49 |  #38

Rubberhead wrote in post #8635437 (external link)
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.


Christian.
Feedback: POTN - FM (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDCSD
GIVIN' GOOD KARMA
Avatar
13,313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota
     
Sep 13, 2009 11:26 |  #39

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


70mm, 1/400s, f/2.8 at ISO 3200 on my MkIIn (please excuse the angle, there was no baseline to sit on and the first 3 rows were taken up by parents)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


If you regularly find yourself in situations like these, you'll need the f/2.8 version. If you usually shoot still scenes or like having motion blur in your action shots (as suggested by others), the F/4 IS is for your.

I wish I could get by with the f/4 IS. I'd love to be able to carry around a lighter lens that is actually sharper, but it won't cut it for my uses.

Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#p​ost9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds


Full Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tgara
Goldmember
Avatar
2,336 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
     
Sep 13, 2009 13:33 as a reply to  @ DDCSD's post |  #40

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.


EOS 5D Mark III
EOS Rebel SL1
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sethultimate
Member
212 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Sep 13, 2009 15:55 |  #41

nureality wrote in post #8634950 (external link)
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).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccookdo
Senior Member
391 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Sep 13, 2009 15:59 |  #42

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Sep 13, 2009 16:11 |  #43

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..


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDCSD
GIVIN' GOOD KARMA
Avatar
13,313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota
     
Sep 13, 2009 16:15 |  #44

DStanic wrote in post #8637438 (external link)
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. :rolleyes:


Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#p​ost9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds


Full Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Karrossa
Junior Member
26 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
     
Sep 13, 2009 16:45 |  #45

Sports = 2.8
Everything else = IS
IMO


Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM, EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II, EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,182 views & 0 likes for this thread
IS or 2.8
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Alfie#
684 guests, 277 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.