f/2.8 or f/4.0 IS ???

M

MadMailMan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
2,209
Reaction score
2
Location
127.0.0.1
Opinions please. It's time for me to bite the proverbial bullet and get me a good zoom lens. I can't justify spending what is needed for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM, well I could but that would mean devorce which would push the price up quite a bit.

I'm looking at either the 70-200 f/4 IS USM or the 70-200 f/2.8 USM (non IS). They are almost the exact same price.

Comments? Suggestions?

Thanks!
 
Hi

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 USM (non IS), which i'm very happy with and one of my friends have a 70-200 f/4 IS USM which is also very good.

the IS helps alot tho. It's a difficult choice :) I would go with the f4 IS. i think the IS would make up for the 1 f/stop loss.
 
Do you shoot moving subjects or still subjects? If still, get the f/4 IS. If you shoot sports and the like, the IS is no good, the f/2.8 will be more useful.

Or just be patient and save a little more until the f/2.8 IS is in reach ;)
 
From my research, the non IS variants are super sharp. And also over the F4 IS and F2.8 IS, they say the F4IS is sharper in the same aperture range as the F2.8. So unless you REALLY need the 2.8 the F4 is the way to go. And unless you really need IS... I do.. get the IS version, but otherwise stick to the non-IS as they are much sharper.

In my case I would go for the IS 2.8 as I wanted something to shoot school concerts so low light was definately an concern and I was going to hand hold probably at 200mm, so definately IS.

I think if you ask yourself the right questions of how you will use the lens, you will arrive at an answer of which one is right for you. If you want the zoom primarily in low light and can do well at holding it steady without IS get the 2.8. otherwise get the F4. In the general case I would recommend the F4IS and then if low light is needed later a 85mm 1.8 can be added or some other prime options.
 
f2.8 with IS :)

Do you shoot a lot of in early morning or other low-light conditions? the IS would be useful there too, although if you shoot wildlife its a catch-22 because having a good fstop will give you great DOF but you need the IS to boot the low light in the early mornings.

Either way, both are good lenses so the above aside I'de take the 70-200 IS, since even at F4 the IS will come in handy at some point.
 
Given the choice between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 Non-IS I'd go for the 2.8. At those focal lengths I'm almost always shooting at something moving and the extra light is going to help me get a sharper image than IS on a slower lens.
 
the problem here is its really two features that complement eachother, so options for lenses with each one instead of both will generate many differing opinions.
 
bwana said:
Given the choice between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 Non-IS I'd go for the 2.8. At those focal lengths I'm almost always shooting at something moving and the extra light is going to help me get a sharper image than IS on a slower lens.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that I'm an amateur noob - I think this is good advice coupled with the fact that the latest DSLR's have such good quality low noise high ISO capabilities, I question the need for IS.
 
bwana said:
Given the choice between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 Non-IS I'd go for the 2.8. At those focal lengths I'm almost always shooting at something moving and the extra light is going to help me get a sharper image than IS on a slower lens.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? 2.8-4.0 is only one stop. Most reviews claim 2 stops or more effect with IS. In addition most faster lenses are not quite as sharp at their widest aperture.
 
Gee, thanks guys. This was supposed to make my decision easier. :p

Anybody rushing out to buy the 70-200 IS USM II ? Want to sell me your old 70-200 IS USM??? Pretty please.

/goes back to his pros and cons list. Mutter. Mutter.
 
arf9999 said:
Are you sure? 2.8-4.0 is only one stop. Most reviews claim 2 stops or more effect with IS. In addition most faster lenses are not quite as sharp at their widest aperture.
Click to expand...
I'm sure - IS only stops your movement - something that can be mitigated with a tripod/monopod/bean bag/steady hand - subject movement is controlled by shutter speed. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is twice as much light getting in.

All the lenses in canons 70-200 L range are very sharp even wide open.
 
arf9999 said:
Are you sure? 2.8-4.0 is only one stop. Most reviews claim 2 stops or more effect with IS. In addition most faster lenses are not quite as sharp at their widest aperture.
Click to expand...

Just remember IS only reduces camera shake, it does not help you freeze action. If you're taking pictures of athletes in twilight no amount of IS will help you freeze the action, only a faster lens can help you do that.
 
bwana said:
All the lenses in canons 70-200 L range are very sharp even wide open.
Click to expand...

They sure are and I can attest to that. The 2.8 wide open is sharp, with the thin DOF you just have to be careful of where you focus and that more than anything is the cause of non-sharp or rather out of focus pictures.

Don't know about the non-is 2.8 but take weight into consideration as well. Especially if you see yourself hand-holding.
 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM weighs 1'310g, and has a 1 stop advantage over the f/4 version, so you could shoot at (example) f/2.8 and 1/400s instead of f/4 and 1/200s.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM weighs 760g, and has IS, so if you're shooting at say 1/200s, you might be able to get away with handholding it at 1/100s, 1/50s or slower, depending on how well the IS works?

So I guess the question is... how big are your muscles? :D
 
MadMailMan said:
Back to my 50mm prime then. :o
Click to expand...

haha Plastic Fantastic.. basically no weight to it lol.
I think I like the idea of shooting at f2.8. Just being able to blur out the background that much looks really nice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X