70-200 f4 is or 70-200 f2.8 is Mk1

I have an opportunity to buy both used locally. Which deal would you go for?

The 70-200 f4 is for $950 or 70-200 f2.8 mk1 for $1400. I've read the f4/is is better optically but the 2.8/is would be better for indoors and weddings. The mk1 might also be heavier and I might not use it while travelling.

What would you do?

Have never used the 2.8 version. It has one thing that the f4IS doesn't: 2.8. The f4 is lighter, has a more advanced IS system, is reported to be optically superior and is smaller, too. I have no desire for the 2.8 version, but that's just my shooting style.

I've used both the f/2.8 and f/4 and I prefer the f/4 IS for the weight & size. However, if you need 2.8 then you need 2.8.

Is the 2.8 really that much better than the 4 for indoors? I put my other lenses at f 2.8 and f4 and I didn't notice the difference that much. I doubt 2.8 is really that good in low light, I do notice a bid difference at 1.8 vs 2.8 on my 85mm.

There is a F4 on amazon for $950- I love my F4.

2.8 .......and don't look back !!

If you think you going to need f2.8 (DOF as well as low light) then get f2.8. I hear all this about f4 being so much better but if you have nice copy of f2.8 IS then differences are quite small. And f4 lens can't do f2.8 however sharp people claim it to be.

BTW - I have newer version II which is supposed to be sharpest of all and let me tell you the differences are very small.

bobbyz wrote in post #11519208
If you think you going to need f2.8 (DOF as well as low light) then get f2.8. I hear all this about f4 being so much better but if you have nice copy of f2.8 IS then differences are quite small. And f4 lens can't do f2.8 however sharp people claim it to be.

BTW - I have newer version II which is supposed to be sharpest of all and let me tell you the differences are very small.

Can't argue with you there. If you need 2.8, get it. However, f2.8 lenses can't fit in the same size bag as the f4s and they aren't as easy to carry around. And, when comparing the 2.8 mark 1 vs the f4IS, the difference is a bit different. If you need the 2.8 for increased blur, then yes. But if you are shooting static subjects, then the f4 actually wins as the better IS beats the fstop improvement.

Thanks. I'll get the 70-200 f4 IS.

JoeW wrote in post #11519224
But if you are shooting static subjects, then the f4 actually wins as the better IS beats the fstop improvement.

Like how, you can shoot at f4 at 1/30 and I can do at f2.8 but at 1/60.

Always get the lens that you are willing to carry with you. Nothing worse than missing the shot because the lens was too big. For me, I ended up with f/4 because f/2.8 is too large to get into MLB game. With the hood reverse, 70-200 f4 does not look too big.

I would get the 70-200 f4 L IS

bobbyz wrote in post #11519745
Like how, you can shoot at f4 at 1/30 and I can do at f2.8 but at 1/60.

Because the IS on the f4 is a 4 stop IS. I can't recall if the old 2.8 is 2 or 3 stop IS, but it is not the same. The new 2.8 IS is, I believe, 4 stop, so trumps the f4 IS due to the 2.8 and same IS system. I have gotten very sharp photos handheld at 1/15th of a second. Granted, not all of the photos taken hand-held are sharp, but the significantly lower weight makes it easier to handhold and the IS is truly phenomenal (so much better than the is on my 24-105).

So you can get sharp shots at 1/15 but you can you, with ver I of 70-200mm f2.8 at 1/30. The IS is not that bad as some folks made it out to be. It is the same IS which is on bigger boys like 300/400mm f2.8 IS or the 500/600mm f4 IS.

For nearly the same money, I chose the non-IS 2.8 over the IS f/4
Obviously, in my mind, the extra stop is worth more that IS. IMO, speed always wins. Speed with IS is of course even better. Remember....IS will not stop the motion of the subject. A faster f/stop and therefore a faster shutter speed helps in that goal.
I don't want to imply that image stabilization is over-rated....but I do think it's just another tool in the arsenal that has to be recognized for it's strengths and weaknesses.

Edit: not that any of this matters....it sounds like the OP has decided on the f/4. Any way you slice it.....good for him. It is an awesome lens....very capable of creating stunning images.
I used to have the non-IS f/4....and some of my all time favorite shots came from that lens on a 20D. A bunch of those shots are still in my portfolio.