2.8 or 4 on the 70-200 L

[eswebster]

I am looking to get a lens to cover this focal length. I anticipate I will ultimately end up with a Tokina 16-28 2.8 (already own) 50 1.4, and one of these two canon lenses. However the price of the 2.8 even without IS is twice the f4 IS version. My question is not which is better as they are both great lenses, the question is will f4 suck on portraits as much as I think it will. I typically shoot landscape and wouldnt need 2.8 or IS.... BUT I will also be using the lens to take portraits of the kids at the arboretum and elsewhere. The 2.8 would be great for in the house shots with lower light....... think I just answered my question.... 2.8.

Time to start saving... damn.... any experience or suggestions for sigma or tamron?

 

[eswebster]

anyone have feedback with the 70-200 2.8 IS mark I?

 

[ronlane]

I am currently using a friends 2.8 and I don't see me even considering the 4 just because of the low light situations that I have been taking some shots in.

 

[curtyoungblood]

anyone have feedback with the 70-200 2.8 IS mark I?

I've had mine since 2007 and haven't even considered upgrading it.

 

[eswebster]

IS or no IS? Thinking of getting the Mark I IS as its $750 cheaper. But not sure if IS will be necessary, might be able to save another 500 or so and go without it. Struggling a bit here.

 

[EIngerson]

None of them will let you down.

 

[eswebster]

I know they wont let me down, but it all depends on the intended use. 2.8 for shooting in lower light in the house of the little guy, IS for handheld shooting... thinking that's the route. Thanks for he input everyone. Good to hear from someone that owns one.

 

[Big Mike]

It's always better to have the option for more exposure...as you will certainly end up in a situation where you'll wish that you had F2.8...or IS, or both. But if you step back and look at the difference, it's really only one stop. That's the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 800. Is that worth $750?

Consider that 5-7 years ago, few photographers would want to use an ISO over 1600. But now, many DSLR cameras are comfortable at 3200 and 6400. So why fuss about one stop of light via the aperture?

Another difference is in DOF, but that's a matter of preference.

Another factor is size & weight. I do use the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS and it's a big heavy beast. After shooting an all-day wedding, my wrist is sore. The F4 version is much smaller and lighter, which may be a concern, especially for a non-pro or a hiker etc.

 

[eswebster]

Thanks big mike! Excellent point with the ISO compensation for the low light situations, for me the 2.8 is more about the bokeh and the DOF. I am shooting with a 5D mark II so higher ISO shouldnt be an issue.

 

[kathyt]

I have both, and I use both because the f2.8 is super heavy. I try to avoid the 2.8 if I can get away with it. If I have alot of light I grab the f4, but if I know I will have to drop below that I stick with the 2.8. They are both excellent lenses. I never use a tripod, so it can make for a sore next day with the 2.8!

 

[HughGuessWho]

I have the 70-200 L 2.8 NON IS and love it. I often use it with a Canon 2X TC handheld with no issues to speak of. I personally would not spend the extra money for the IS version.

 

[eswebster]

Thanks hugh and kathy.... the one drawback on the 2.8 is the weight. I shoot primarily landscape and hauling it around backpacking sounds like it wouldnt necessarily be traveling light.

Thats really the last point i am struggling with is the IS and no IS. I may just have to buy from BH and try out the non-IS and see if i get sharp handheld images. If not then I can return and get the IS version somewhere they sell it. The 2.8 may make the shutter time quick enough to combat the need for IS. IS wont slow down a 3 year old darting around the house either.... just will help reduce my own shake.

 

[ronlane]

IS or no IS? Thinking of getting the Mark I IS as its $750 cheaper. But not sure if IS will be necessary, might be able to save another 500 or so and go without it. Struggling a bit here.

The one I am using is the Non-IS version and I haven't noticed many issues with it. (well except for some low light stuff with hand held at 1/25 of a second SS but I expected that).

 

[HughGuessWho]

You just need to learn and practice proper holding techniques. I hike frequently with my 24-70 and 70-200. Weight is not an issue for me and I'm an old man.

 

[Steve5D]

anyone have feedback with the 70-200 2.8 IS mark I?

I've had mine since 2007 and haven't even considered upgrading it.

Ditto. I love that lens...