70 -200 f/2.8L IS or 70- 200 f/4.0L IS

[phototrek]

I am thinking of buying one of these lens for landscape photos. I already have the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L. So do you guys think I should upgrade to the IS version or get the f/4.0L IS version. I usually do not shoot at dusk or early morning light. If I have to I always have the non IS version. Also, which lens will be good for the new 5D2 camera I will buy in the future?

 

[Dao]

Although I do not have the 70-200mm range L lens, but personally, I will not jump from F/2.8 non-IS to F/4 IS.

What is the limitation of the current lens that make you think you need the IS feature? Camera shake?

 

[Big Mike]

If you are shooting landscape, you likely won't need to shoot at F2.8, so the F4 version would likely be sufficient.

However, when shooting landscapes, you should be using a tripod, so you wouldn't need IS either.

 

[phototrek]

Even though a tripod would be nice, carry a tripod is not convenient. I always hand hold my lenes. I was just thinking that the IS would be great to have. Also, I can have a lighter backpack with the f/4.0L IS.

 

[epp_b]

IS is not a substitute for raw speed. If you feel you need IS, don't sacrifice a wide aperture for it, get the f/2.8 IS.

 

[Big Mike]

Sometimes getting creating great photos isn't convenient

But yes, if you are going to be taking landscape shots hand-held, then IS would certainly be an advantage.

 

[CxThree]

If you have the F2.8 and you want another 70-200, I would suggest the F4 non IS> I have it and the 2.8L IS. The F4 is much lighter, smaller, and even sharper. I tend to use it for a lighter lens when I am going to be out and about a lot in a day.