Canon 70-200 (F4 IS or F2.8 non-IS)!?!?!

Right, im pretty much dead set on buying one of these but I have a few worries and questions.

Number 1.
How much is my 70-300 USM IS worth? Ebay suggests £320 + P&P and mines a good copy from what I can tell too...


Number 2. Using the comparisons:
At this site...

The F4 IS is WAY better than the F2.8, even at F8. So is that a bad copy of the F2.8 or what there?

I've used both the F4 and F2.8 IS versions and the F2.8 was a tad less sharp (as from what I gather is expected) but the F2.8 non-IS is sharper than all of them (bar the F4 non-IS? correct?)

Number 3.. purchase price.

Onestop-Digital
F4 IS: £886
F2.8: £870

Kerso
F4 IS: £859
F2.8: £925

Getting it from Kerso means UK warranty, but i've got all my kit with no problems from onestop... £55 saving worth it, really?

Second hand prices? Maybe find a good second hand version?

Number 4: Extenders.

Now both would allow the 1.4x TC and the 2x TC, the results for the 2x are abit worse than a dedicated 100-400 from what i've seen so generally how do both work with the 1.4x TC?


Going to be used on a 40D for the moment with a 7D in the near future...

Cheers for any input.

Comes down to what you shoot. If you're going to be doing indoor sports where you need the f/2.8, then your question is already answered. The 70-200 line is great among all of them. The f/2.8 is sharp and will be great for what most people need it for. The f/4 IS is sharper, but it cannot go to f/2.8.

Also, if you're planning on using a 2x extender, the f/4 IS would make the fastest aperture f/8, which would make you lose auto-focus on all Canon bodies except for a 1D series.

TaDa wrote in post #9944114
Comes down to what you shoot. If you're going to be doing indoor sports where you need the f/2.8, then your question is already answered. The 70-200 line is great among all of them. The f/2.8 is sharp and will be great for what most people need it for. The f/4 IS is sharper, but it cannot go to f/2.8.

Also, if you're planning on using a 2x extender, the f/4 IS would make the fastest aperture f/8, which would make you lose auto-focus on all Canon bodies except for a 1D series.

Well thing is everything i've ever shot with my 70-300 is 99% moving, so that suggests the F2.8... however the IS on my 17-55 is invaluable so *shrug*

IS does nothing to stop motion of your subject. If you're shooting moving objects, then the 2.8 will be more useful than the IS in the f/4 as you'll be able to get a full stop faster shutter speed. Also, I'd personally recommend a used 1d3 instead of the 7d if you're planning on shooting action. They're about the same price point of new 7d vs. used 1d3

TaDa wrote in post #9944166
IS does nothing to stop motion of your subject. If you're shooting moving objects, then the 2.8 will be more useful than the IS in the f/4 as you'll be able to get a full stop faster shutter speed. Also, I'd personally recommend a used 1d3 instead of the 7d if you're planning on shooting action. They're about the same price point of new 7d vs. used 1d3

Problem with that is I have two EF-S lenses without the ability to afford the 16-35 and 24-70.

At this point in time, it's 7D or nothing!

Canon 17-40 and Tamron 28-75. I can keep spending your money all day long

p.s. your 10-22 and 17-55 would be pretty even with the 24-70 and 17-40 on the used market.

1. Not sure
2. Well, I think you are focusing too much on the edges of the frame, the centers are very similar.
3. I don't like where you do, no comment.
4. Teleconverters generally degrade IQ, especially on a zoom lens. I honestly wouldn't bank on using a 2x, a 1.4 should be fine tho. Keep in mind, with A 2x TC on a f4 lens, you will lose AF on most Canon cameras.

TaDa wrote in post #9944166
IS does nothing to stop motion of your subject. If you're shooting moving objects, then the 2.8 will be more useful than the IS in the f/4 as you'll be able to get a full stop faster shutter speed. Also, I'd personally recommend a used 1d3 instead of the 7d if you're planning on shooting action. They're about the same price point of new 7d vs. used 1d3

I'm gonna have to disagree. The OP is taking about teleconverters and all, the 7D will give you more reach based on sensor crop factor and more resolution so you can crop more. On top of that, with a crop frame camera, the edge sharpness of the lens is less important. They also run about $600-$800 USD more than a brand new 7D. Why do you recommend a 1D3 over a 7D TaDa?

Overall better IQ at higher ISO. I shot with the 7D for 2 weeks and just didn't like the images as compared to those of the 1D3. As for degrading IQ with extenders, you're correct, but either way, the 2.8 will always be a stop faster than the f/4 IS.

I own/use all of the equiment that you are asking about (40D,7D, both 70-200).Since I've had the 7D I can use a higher ISO than I could with the 40D and this kind of leveled out the playing field. On the 2.8 the higher ISO gets my shutter speed to where (usually) IS is not missed.On the 4.0 IS the ISO helps the slower lens (4 stop IS is a big factor on static but not on moving subjects).To me the 2.8 has better background seperation than the 4.0 has but the 4.0 is lighter and does not attract as much attention.I like them both and from what I've read these two lenses are the sharpest of the four (2.8II IS not included) but that is not really something that you'll notice because all of the 70-200's are good.

For me sharpness between the lenses is not a consideration. You either need the speed of the 2.8 or you don't. If not, there's no reason to spend the extra money and lug around the extra weight and bulk. I went f/4 IS, and haven't thought about it since.

If you need 2.8 for those low light shots then get the 2.8. If your going to be shooting mainly outside get the F4 IS. Ive hsot both these lenses and IQ wise the F4IS is a much better lens. Its sharper and has much nicer contrast/pop to the photos than the 2.8.

chomish wrote in post #9945287
If you need 2.8 for those low light shots then get the 2.8. If your going to be shooting mainly outside get the F4 IS. Ive hsot both these lenses and IQ wise the F4IS is a much better lens. Its sharper and has much nicer contrast/pop to the photos than the 2.8.

I like the 4.0IS for is size-the 2.8 (at least my copy)is as sharp as (my copy) the 4.0IS.With the 7D higher useable ISO you can gain the stop difference to get the shutter speed to where IS really doesn't help that much(in reference to the 40D)while shooting moving subjects.I like the 2.8 for it's DOF-you can't get that with 4.0.

I had this issue awhile back and all I can say it is like comparing apples to oranges. Each brings it's advantages and disadvantages as pointed out in the replies. At the end of the day, I went with the 70-200mm f4.0 non-IS.

I figured I wanted to see what my numbers looked like after a period of time before putting out the big bucks. I am satisfied I made the right decision on the f4.0 but wish the price of the IS version stated around $1050 to upgrade. Now it is in the $1200 range. But I will be selling the non-IS for the IS at some point when funds become available. Oh, I did have the opportunity to borrow the f2.8 and what a big lens. Did not use the f2.8 as much I would have expected.

Dave D.

It boils down to two questions:

Do you mind the weight?
Do you shoot in low light...a lot?

Cost isn't an issue otherwise you wouldn't be asking.

I was shooting my kid at a park with my 24-105mm f/4 when the sun was down and the light was quite bluey, quite dim as far as a camera sensor is concerned. At ISO 1600 on my 40D I was shooting Tv at 1/250sec. With my Safery Shift on, it had opened up to its max aperture of f/4. When it can't go wider, it forces the speed from 1/250sec down to 1/125sec or less. Now this was definitely not enough to capture the movement that I wanted to achieve, and this is when I wished I had an f/2.8. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at the higher speeds are much greater (1/125sec in my case).

Focussing speeds are also faster on an f/2.8 as the lens is set at its widest until you press the shutter, allowing more light into the sensor.

Don't get a non-IS, especially with a teleconverter - I have enough trouble with my 70-200mm with 1.4x converter at 280mm with IS on at times let alone without. Though I hand hold mine a lot so IS is a god send.

I'm not a sports photog (yet) so I'll keep the extra cash for other uses and keep my F/4 IS. I also use a Sun Sniper (very comfortable) so any upgrade to a 2.8 isn't an issue for me.

Get the 2.8L