70-200 f/4 IS OR 70-200 f/2.8 NON-IS?

I'm looking to buy one of these two lenses used, and they're about the same price. What's the better attribute...the wider aperture or the IS? I'm using a 7D, so I can crank the ISO up decently high for faster shutter speeds without IQ degrading too much...but i'm wondering what the smarter play here is.

Any advice from someone who owns or has owned one or both of these lenses would be much appreciated!

Another thing to consider is the size. The 2.8 is heavier and larger in both diameter/length. It's hard to say whether the 2.8 or 4 IS will be better for you. Depends on what you want to shoot. Personally, I'm perfectly happy with f/4 at this FL because I'm not going to use it inside (darker conditions). I have primes for that. I shoot on a 7D also, so I don't hesitate to crank up the ISO when the clouds come out either. I've yet to come across a time that I absolutely needed the 2.8, to be honest.

I should note that after testing each version of the 70-200 (this was pre-mk2), I settled on the non-IS f/4. I just didn't feel the need for the stabilization. I tend to either be using shutter speeds to stop motion (which is typically above what you need to compensate for the 200 FL) or can use it on a tripod if I have to. Plus, I wanted the smaller lens, physically. I couldn't be happier with it, FWIW. It's my second most used lens and well over 90% of the shots have been handheld.

As the owner of a F/4 non-IS for 3 hours, I am not really placed to comment !!

are you trying to stop action or will you be shooting still subjects? to me, that about the only way to answer this question.

TheLaird wrote in post #10454949
As the owner of a F/4 non-IS for 3 hours, I am not really placed to comment !!

As a NON-OWNER of any of the 70-200mm L lenses I say, rent both lenses for a week each and then evaluate how you liked them.

I have the 24-70 and mostly do portraits. I have an interest in doing high school sports and such, but haven't done much of that yet.

The price tag on the 70-200 f/4 NON-IS is very attractive, as is the lack of weight as compared to its heavier kin.

I wonder how the bokeh compares with the 2.8 versions. If it's pretty smooth and looks nice, I have no problem going with the f/4. Then it's just a question of IS or non, and I think I can probably live without. The NON-IS f/4 is much lighter than the 24-70...and I can always break out my monopod if I need to.

Read this review if you want more specifics on how each of the lenses performs.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Danloc78 wrote in post #10455011
I have the 24-70 and mostly do portraits. I have an interest in doing high school sports and such, but haven't done much of that yet.

The price tag on the 70-200 f/4 NON-IS is very attractive, as is the lack of weight as compared to its heavier kin.

I wonder how the bokeh compares with the 2.8 versions. If it's pretty smooth and looks nice, I have no problem going with the f/4. Then it's just a question of IS or non, and I think I can probably live without. The NON-IS f/4 is much lighter than the 24-70...and I can always break out my monopod if I need to.

i have owned the 70-200/4 IS
i have used the 70-200 2.8 NON IS for around 1000 shots
I own the 70-200/2.8 IS II

the only reason i sold the former and bought the latter was because i needed 2.8 for concert photography. otherwise the 4/IS was my favorite lens of all time. sharp, light and always delivered.

i used it in good light mostly. studio portraits and outdoor portraits. i never had an issue with f4 limiting my DoF. the 4 stop IS was super. on a crop body, instead of shooting at 1/320 I was getting sharp pictures at and below 1/60.

you also get a sharper lens (IS v non IS) and weather sealing. to me, the IS is worth the extra cost and you can get one used just over $900 right now.

I've owned both and the f4 IS is a no brainer.

Tripod or handheld?

Definitely the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I carry mine everywhere and shoot it in tandem with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 1.6x bodies. The reasons I chose the f/4L IS over the f/2.8L non-IS are:

1. Weight: I can carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS PLUS an additional 1.6x camera for the weight of the f/2.8L alone.

2. The extra stop of the f/2.8L lens is not a magic panacea for lower light shoooting. I can shoot my f/4L IS hand-held when cranked out to 200mm at 1/60 second and expect perfectly sharp imagery. I could not shoot the f/2.8L at 1/120 second and expect 100% sharp imagery. I can shoot the f/4L IS at 1/30 second and still get a reasonable percentage of keepers. I could get NO keepers shooting the f/2.8L at 1/60 second.

3. Even in sports, I would rather have an overall sharp image with my subject blurred a bit than an all over unsharp image. Additionally, the extra f/stop will often not make the difference between a sharp and a motion blurred image.

4. Some photographers detract from the f/4L IS because you cannot shoot with a 2x TC on a 1.6x camera and retain auto focus. However, I don't like the results from the 2x TC. It may be satisfactory for some photographers but, not for me.

5. Much is said about DOF at f/2.8 and how it can isolate subjects. However, I quite often shoot at f/4 and get a narrow DOF, especially at closer focusing distances. Additionally, the f/2.8 DOF at 200mm can frequently be too narrow.

6. However, I would not choose the f/4L IS because it is supposed to have better IQ than the f/2.8L. Both lenses produce magnificent IQ and I don't think you could pick out, based on IQ, from a series of photos shot with all the five 70-200mm cousins which image was shot with which lens.

BTW: I own the f/4L IS, have previously owned the f/4L. I can use my IS version 4-5x more often than the non-IS model. The non-IS f/4L is not, IMO an all-around lens like its sibling the f/4L IS. I have shot with the f/2.8L and did not like its size and weight.

Better DOF control? the 70-200 f/2.8.

Otherwise Ide stick to the f4 because it's lighter, meaning that it's easier to handhold too

The 70-200F4 will have better IQ and you can probably makeup for the aperture difference with the IS. I always go for 2.8 though since it has better DOF.

70-200 f4 IS, it's one of Canons sharpest lenses in production, it is unbelievably sharp wide open and is light and easy to carry around unlike the 2.8 counterpart.

To OP: If you are lazy like me, get f/4 IS.

Nothing worse than having a $1k sitting at home on the shelf after a couple of weeks due to the lens weight.

Also, size does matter a lot. I can fit my 70-200 F/4 inside by medium size camera bag (Kata 3n2-20) in the upper compartment and walk into any sports event. I have never been asked to leave once. I don't think I can do that with f/2.8 lens. I will likely need a new larger bag.