EF 70-200mm F/2.8 (IS or no IS)

[prodigy2k7]

So, it does have the handy feature of being faster than the F/4, so what do you prefer and why? F/2.8 allowed faster shutter speeds to be used, and therefore maybe no camera shake so maybe IS is not always needed.
Is it worth it for the extra money to have both F/2.8 and IS?

What are your thoughts?

 

[astrostu]

Everything depends on your usage. The short answer is: "Yes." Better to be prepared and not need all the equipment than not have the equipment and miss a shot.

 

[Village Idiot]

So, it does have the handy feature of being faster than the F/4, so what do you prefer and why? F/2.8 allowed faster shutter speeds to be used, and therefore maybe no camera shake so maybe IS is not always needed.
Is it worth it for the extra money to have both F/2.8 and IS?

What are your thoughts?

I took a photo with my 2.8 IS at 70mm with a shutter speed of 1/10. There was minimal blur due to camera shake. Try doing that without IS on and it'll be all over the place unless you're using a stabilizer of some sort.

 

[keith204]

I took a photo with my 2.8 IS at 70mm with a shutter speed of 1/10. There was minimal blur due to camera shake. Try doing that without IS on and it'll be all over the place unless you're using a stabilizer of some sort.

I have used a 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma and absolutely loved it. Recently I stepped up to a 70-200 f/2.8L IS by Canon and love that too.

Like Village Idiot said, the IS certainly helps when shooting at telephoto lengths. I took a few shots at 200mm and 1/15 to 1/25 second, and they all turned out acceptable (no subject movement of course). It's stunning how much IS helps at the telephoto lengths.

If you aren't sure if you have the budget room, get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 used. Great lens, sharp, fast AF, etc. It's some of the best bang for the buck and a great intro into the 70-200mm range. If you get a used copy, you can always sell it later without it depreciating much. However, if you can splurge - IS is pretty nifty!

Side note -
I'd totally get a f/2.8 non-IS over a f/4 IS, but that's just me & I do sports.

 

[Big Mike]

The way I look at this choice...is that if you compromise and don't get the F2.8 IS, there will come a time (probably many) when you will wish that you had bought that lens. You may even find yourself upgrading to it.

That's why I'm waiting until I can afford it, rather than buying a cheaper one and compromising.

 

[sultan]

Get the 2.8 IS if at all possible (wait and save money).

The IS is well worth it, realistically offering a 2 stop advantage (3 are claimed, I think). Thus, a f/4 IS will perform as well as a f/2 non-IS

UPDATE - Yes, IS will not help with subject motion. It only stops shake. I personally don't think about subject motion much because I always shoot sationaly subjects. Even the birds I shoot are practically stationary.

 

[|)\/8]

If you can afford the "IS" version, get it, you won't be sorry.

 

[Big Mike]

A couple members hit on it...but it does really depend on what you shoot. IS is a fantastic tool for a lot of things...but it won't do anything to help freeze a moving subject....because you are still using longer shutter speeds. That being said, it's probably still better to have it than not.

Now, every new camera seems to be better at controlling noise at high ISO settings...so you could argue that if you have a great camera that shoots clean at ISO 1600, then you could gain back those shutter speeds by increasing the ISO and choose the F4 over the F2.8.

Then there is still the DOF difference to consider. You can get a shallower DOF with F2.8 than F4.

 

[RyanLilly]

A couple members hit on it...but it does really depend on what you shoot. IS is a fantastic tool for a lot of things...but it won't do anything to help freeze a moving subject....because you are still using longer shutter speeds. That being said, it's probably still better to have it than not.

Now, every new camera seems to be better at controlling noise at high ISO settings...so you could argue that if you have a great camera that shoots clean at ISO 1600, then you could gain back those shutter speeds by increasing the ISO and choose the F4 over the F2.8.

Then there is still the DOF difference to consider. You can get a shallower DOF with F2.8 than F4.

Well You could argue that, but the faster glass I get, and the cleaner high iso gets, I find darker and more poorly light places to shoot, I won't be satisfied until I can shoot in a cave.

 

[sabbath999]

I have the VR (Nikon) version... and while I can honestly say I like the image stabilization, I am not sure I would buy it again over the non-VR (which is like IS) due to the massive price difference between the 70-200 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 (non-vr).

 

[Big Mike]

I won't be satisfied until I can shoot in a cave.

Amen!