IS with f4 or non-IS and f/2.8?

"The Question": IS and f4 or non-IS and f/2.8?

How many times has The Question been asked? Hundreds on this site alone.

This question reaches a crescendo when the 70-200mm is considered because all four combinations of IS and Lens speed are available on a 70-200mm.

Here’s the deal: IS and faster lenses are not answers to the same question. Asking do I need IS or a faster lens is like asking do I need a Ford F150 or Angioplasty?

The Question is really two questions: Do I need IS? Do I need a faster lens?

Faster Lens are the answer for the following needs:
I need better focusing accuracy and/or focusing speed.
I need a brighter viewfinder.
I need greater subject/background separation.
I need better low-light performance on stationary subjects.
I need fast shutter speeds in low light conditions.

Image Stabilization is the answer for the following needs:
I need to shoot shutter speeds slower than the "1 / focal length" the rule of thumb.
I need to be able to blur motion or panning shots without a tripod.
I need better low-light performance on stationary subjects.
I need to shoot higher f-stops.
I need to be able to go sans tripod in more situations.

These lists might not be complete but notice that the only overlap in the two lists is better low-light performance with stationary subjects.

Folks considering going with a faster lens usually don’t think about the focusing and viewfinder improvements but these can be a big deal to many photographers.

The most oft missed advantages of adding IS to a lens is shooting higher f-stops without tripods or sacrificing ISO performance.

Just my unsolicited thoughts on the IS vs. f/2.8 discussion and it didn't even cost you the 2¢.
[/FONT]

Did you even try to do a search and read all the 874 previous threads?

I had the f4 IS. IS was nice but not having 2.8 was a pain. I now own the 70-200 non IS and I'm thrilled with it. Even matched with a 1.4 TC it's very very sharp. For what I shoot, not having IS hasn't been an issue.

gasrocks wrote in post #8793115
Did you even try to do a search and read all the 874 previous threads?

I think you forgot the trailing zero.
8740 previous threads.

why couldn't you just title it "70-200 f4 is vs 70-200 f2.8"


"ImPator" ur comment was funny when i read it but it got more funny when i saw ur sig lol

This is an age old question. I have the 70-200 2.8is but if I only had your choice I would go with the F4is.

gasrocks wrote in post #8793115
Did you even try to do a search and read all the 874 previous threads?

My summary of those threads....

(1) All 4 are good lenses
(2) Some are more expensive than others
(3) There are 874 opinions out there as to which one you should get!
(4) If you don't know which one to get, then asking yet another question about it probably isn't going to help!

I chose the f4 is because of it's size and sharpness.
But if you shoot in low light you need the 2.8

BeritOlam wrote in post #8795056
My summary of those threads....

(3) There are 874 opinions out there as to which one you should get!

Nope, only 4 opinions.

Each is shared by 8,740 people.

its quiet simple really...

an F4 lens can never EVER EVER be an f2.8 Lens, Image Stabalising or NOT and I believe this single point is the root of confusion for so many people who don't understand aperture size in relationship to their specific shooting style.

p.s...

you can stop down an f2.8 lens to F4 when ever you *like*

bluefox9er wrote in post #8801766
you can stop down an f2.8 lens to F4 when ever you *like*

True....but you can't 'step down' 1470g to 760g whenever you like!