Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS?

I have the 70-200 f/4 non-IS now and I love it. A 2.8 non IS just came up for sale locally for a good price. Would the added weight of the 2.8 be stupid to get with no IS? I have no problem holding my f/4 with no IS, but Im wondering if it would be worth getting the 2.8 with no IS....

Thought?

Thanks

I have the 2.8 non is after owning the f4 non is. Its heavier, and not as sharp, but the extra stop is very helpful when getting action shots. I would say the AF is a little faster. I wouldn't use this lens without a grip.

Just go buy it and see how it compares to your f4 and sell it if you don't like it.

Im thinking about it. I just love my f/4 so much, I figured that the extra stop would be good and I did read that AF is a little fater. Faster is better, but Im not really willing to give up sharpness for it. My personal opinion is that the 70-200 F/4 is one of, if not the best lens available for the money. Period. I may scoop it and dump it if I dont like. thanks for the info buddy

My only concern with this upgrade is as follows, I know that the 2.8 is going to be faster. I shoot motorsports primarily and as I said above I do a lot of panning. I dont want to upgrade if Im going to lose the "blurring" background that I can achieve with my f/4. I know if I buy this 2.8, that I wont be using the f/4 and will likely sell. This is my one concern about the switch.

Either tell me Im right or tell me Im crazy for thinking such a thing.

Koshin wrote in post #10914812
Im thinking about it. I just love my f/4 so much, I figured that the extra stop would be good and I did read that AF is a little fater. Faster is better, but Im not really willing to give up sharpness for it. My personal opinion is that the 70-200 F/4 is one of, if not the best lens available for the money. Period. I may scoop it and dump it if I dont like. thanks for the info buddy

The f4 non IS is sharper than the F2.8 non IS? I thought it was the other way around. Anyways get the 2.8. It's a no brainer if you shoot sports. Better bokeh and faster lens.

Im gonna snatch it and if I dont like it it will be for sale very very soon on here....either way, one of them will be for sale

and everything Ive read they say the f/4 is a little bit sharper than the 2.8 at full zoom. Which I find odd. Unless Im just plain wrong in what Im reading.

The f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 but at f/4 I think they pretty much are equal. Check the digital picture lens comparison if you want a rough comparison on sharpness. And you will have better bokeh "blurred background" on the f/2.8

If you need 2.8 and can live with the size/weight I say go for it, its an amazing lens. Any difference either way in sharpness is a non issue.

Im having a very hard time deciding what to do. I dont need 3 big white lenses in my kit. Im going to go look at it this evening, but chances are I wont be able to really do much with it prior to buying. If they are the same @ f/4 and the 2.8 is not as sharp at 2.8 as the f/4 is at f/4 whats the point? Im very up in the air right now and its to much monies just to have one of them sitting around.

I know the 2.8 is better on paper, but in real life is it really better? especially for what Im shooting with it. Im sorry if Im being redundant, but Im not a millionaire and have to put to good use what I do buy.

One of you guys just tell me what I should do and Ill do it lol

I assumed a difference in sharpness was going to be miniscule at most. I cant tell the difference in the shots ive compared as I dont think most people can.

my 70-200 2.8 is sharper then my 24-70 at 2.8 so I would say its a very sharp lens. Its pretty simple really, if you need 2.8 get it, both lenses have a high resale value so you can't really loose. I got mine as great deal used as well.

Im going to look at it in like an hour. Im gonna try and bargain with him a little bit and try and get it cheaper. If its clean as he says it is, Im buying it. He bought it brand new a year and half ago and only used it 10 times. Thanks for the advise gents

Rich

I just looked at it. Its cleaner than the Board of Health. It looks like its never been used. And I was super impressed with how fast it was even at dusk. Im buying it. anyone looking for a minty fresh 70-200 f/4, absoultely perfect w/ a polarized Sunpak filter? I have everything it came with and the original box. PM me or its going on Craigslist or Ebay. $525 shipped and insured

You might want to consider keeping your sharp 70-200mm f4 lens and adding the VERY sharp and light 200mm 2.8 L prime. This beauty can be had used for about $600-$625, and will be much sharper at 2.8 than the 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS lens. You would have a great IQ combination!

Unless you do alot of shooting in the 1/80 sec range, I say go for the IS