Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (non IS) or F/4 (IS)

I have been going to replace my 55-250 for 3 months now. I cannot decide between the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) or the 4.0 (IS). They are about the same price, I really want the 2.8 for the bokeh but for the times when I need the IS, I guess I can just bump the ISO up. Has anyone been sorry they got the 70-200 F/2.8 non IS? I hear the F/4 is sharper. Id this true in your experience?

I honestly cannot decide. I am stuck using my 55-250 and it's not doing me any favors. I don't mind the 55-250....it's just time to step up.

If you have purchased the 70-200 F/2.8 NON IS and are sorry....please let me know. If you have any input I would like to hear it.

I have been doing some tests with the IS off with my 55-250 and I'm not seeing too many images I need to through away. I think I'm leaning towards the 2.8 non IS but I wanted some input from owners or knowledgeable people before pulling the trigger on the 2.8 non IS. What's your experience. I know there are plenty of people here that have owned both or faced the same decision I now face.

Nate. I will be following you thread. I can't make up my mind to get the F4 IS or the F2.8 non-IS either. Hope you get some responses from those with experience with these two lenses.

In the meantime, here is an article on a comparison. http://wlcastleman.com …/reviews/70_200​/index.htm

I bought the f/4 IS in preference, but not for reasons of cost - because of for the weight. The f/2.8 weighs double, which makes it a lump by any measure.

I would love f/2.8, and keep casting lusty glances at the new 2.8 IS MkII, mainly for the bokeh/shallow DoF, which is utterly wonderful, but I know I would just resent carting it around.

The f/4 IS is indeed sharper than any of the other 70-200s, except the new MkII. And for me on a 5D2, ISO and IS are a very good way of handling low light when, most of the time, I don't actually want the shallow DoF of f/2.8 anyway (often quite the reverse).

Hoppy1 wrote in post #11065642
I bought the f/4 IS in preference, but not for reasons of cost - because of for the weight. The f/2.8 weighs double, which makes it a lump by any measure.

Weight is a major concern for me as well. Not because I don;t think I can hand hold the 2.8, but I will have to buy a new bag system. The 2.8 will not fit inside my current bag.

The types of images I normally take are portraits and still life, so I think I will benefit from the bokeh more than most fro the 2.8.

I am testing my 55-250 with and without the IS on right now and I seem to be getting great results with the IS off.....however the 55-250 is a MUCH lighter lens.

I'm still stuck. I am reading the reviews on Amazon now. There is a lot of information there from owners. It helps to hear their views on the 2.8 and 4.0.....but everybody seems to love BOTH lenses. haha

A big deciding factor for me is filter size when I can not decide .
I don't know about you but I put the best filter I can on my lenses .
I was looking at the 70-200 f4 IS also - B&H shows it as a 77 in magazines , it's not - it's a 67 . I carry at least 2 - ksm cpl , uv and nd's for each lens I put in bag . [the 10-22 and 17-55 use 77 mm and live in bag]
I am now stuck between the 100-400 IS and the 70-200 IS 2.8 II .
Go for the 70-200 f4 if filter is not a consideration .
Your bag , tripod , head are to also be considered

r.morales wrote in post #11065734
A big deciding factor for me is filter size when I can not decide .
I don't know about you but I put the best filter I can on my lenses .

Good point. I happen to have good CPL, UV, and ND filters in 67mm and 77mm. I got the 67mm for my 18-135 (of all lenses) but I have them if I need them. The bag system is also a good point. I have outgrown my current bag as I have to leave 1 lens home when i go on a shoot. It's not hard now because I can leave my 18-135 home. I have those focal ranges covered with better lenses. However if I got the f/4 and sold my 55-250 and 18-135 I would be able to use the same bag system.

I am mostly concerned with weight, size, bokeh and if I will miss IS too much.

IMO, definitely get the IS version, unless you use it exclusively inside a studio and/or want to carry tripod everywhere you go.

Right now I carry the 10-22 , 17-55 and either the 28-135 or the 35-350 . I am going to probably get the 100-400 IS .
By the time I put the needed items in my bag [1st aid kit , cleaning kit , card readers , cables timers and remotes] , there is not much room left .
A trick I use is to screw all the 77 mm filters together , put a snap on lens on one end . The other end gets a reducing , adapter ring and a snap on lens cap [58 's are easy to find] Same with the 72 mm filters .
The 100-400 IS takes a 77 mm so that means at least 6 less filters in bag .
By the way , if you have 67 mm , do a search on new 70-300 - looks like a winner - but new so no test shots yet .

r.morales wrote in post #11065882
By the way , if you have 67 mm , do a search on new 70-300 - looks like a winner - but new so no test shots yet .

This new lens would be great it it were a constant aperture. It's F/4-5.6. Looks like a nice lens but too bad it has to be a variable aperture.

Good idea with the filter trick. I never thought about screwing them together.

Lenses are a hard choice.......any L lens would be a nice upgrade from the 55-250. I am finding buying a new lens involves compromise. I had to give up things when I got my 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens. It's an EF-S lens and will not fit full frame. Always compromise.

♥ It. This image I took this afternoon (hand held)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

If you have calm down hands go for non IS f/2.8 .... I have 70-200mm f/2.8 IS... and yes that's true it's very heavy... but with IS I can shoot 1/30 1/50 with lenght 200mm and the photos are coming sharp. FOr me peronally If I I have a choice beetwen 70-200mm f/4 IS and 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS I will go with 70-200mm f/4 IS... it's a great lens...

I just wanted to chime in about the weight. I shoot sports with a 1D2n and 300 f/4L handheld, with only a handstrap, on a daily basis. It weighs about the same as, if not a tiny bit more than, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. People make the lens out to be extremely heavy as if you can't hold it up on your own. It's a bit heavy the first time you use it, then after that you don't even realize you're holding up 10-12lbs of camera gear in one hand.

I have shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI for about two hours once, handheld (as in I had no camera strap at all), and was not struggling to hold it.

I would go with the f/2.8 IS.
A great (and I mean great) lens lasts forever!

Ask yourself what you're reallly going to be doing with the lens. I bought the f/4 a few weeks ago. Great lens. If I go to the park with my daughter, it's realistic for me to take it with me, I don't think I could say the same about the 2.8.

If I was shooting sports all day with it, I'd get the 2.8 in a heartbeat. Otherwise, get the f/4 and another lens... Like the 135L

I was in the same situation before and I chose the 2.8 Non-IS.

Yes the 2.8 is huge and heavier than the f/4 IS but it is not that heavy as people seem like it is. At first it may seem huge and heavy because you're not used to it, but after a while you'll get used it. Then you'll think it's not that bad.

But the main reason why I bought the 2.8 was simply the 2.8 f/stop. Yes the f/4 IS may have the IS, lighter weight, and sharpness. But the 2.8 gives you the extra stop of f/stop to increase shutter to freeze motion. Increase in bokeh. This is over looked many times in debates but the 2.8 has the advantage in AF. Canon cameras has cross AF points, but aren't activated until a lens with a aperture with at least of 2.8.

But really it's up to you and what you shoot.