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

This has answered a lot of the questions I had, thanks too all who helped....

Thanks to all the info.

It really does depend on what I plan to do with the lens. I do a little of everything. I want to do more of everything. I want as much versatility as I can get. The 2.8 is what I am leaning towards, but having a smaller, lighter lens in the F/4 would be nice.

It is a tough decision.

nate42nd wrote in post #11067898
Thanks to all the info.

It really does depend on what I plan to do with the lens. I do a little of everything. I want to do more of everything. I want as much versatility as I can get. The 2.8 is what I am leaning towards, but having a smaller, lighter lens in the F/4 would be nice.

It is a tough decision.

Maybe the answer is to keep the 55-250, which is wonderfully light and in the overall deal not a big cost, and get the 2.8? And even if you do find that you've made the wrong choice, you can always sell any 70-200L for good money.

I would definitely go with the IS!! I sold my 28-70 2.8L for the 24-105 F4 IS L. Definitely the best decision ever. Photos are way SHARP!!!


I dont miss the 2.8 much. I rarely used it. If Im in low light situation you can bump up the ISO.

As much as I wanted the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I couldn't come up with the mulah 'cuz I spent it all on the 16-35 f/2.8 II and 580EX II. Thought I could wait a while and save toward the $2K+ lens. All that changed when my 8th grade son made the middle school basketball team last week. Because I want to get photos of him playing, I need something now, so I ordered the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. Ordered it today and hope I'll be pleased.

kdhickey254 wrote in post #11067788
This has answered a lot of the questions I had, thanks too all who helped....

Yea, I got a chance to test out both lenses and I would go with the f/2.8 non IS over the f/4 IS.

In my case, i ended up liking the IS so much along with the f/2.8 that i ended up getting the f/2.8 IS mk2.