Lens advise - 70-200 f/4 IS

[ketan]

Hello,
70-200L f/4 IS and 70-200L f/2.8 (non IS) are absolutely the same price here at $1,422.
I am inclined towards 70-200L f/4 IS, especially for IS feature. I think that I can live with the difference of f/2.8 and f/4.
pls advise.
Needless to say, 70-200 f/2.8 IS is $1850.
Ketan

 

[JIP]

Not being a Canon person I really cannot speak on those specific lenses but if it were me I would always go for the 2.8 lens. The IS lens costs the same for just that the IS.

 

[pandinus]

I agree with JIP. The IS feature is an asset, but I'd go for the f/2,8 lens.

 

[ketan]

If I am understanding correctly between 70-200L f/4 IS and 70-200L f/2.8 (non IS) you would go for 70-200L f/2.8 (Non IS), mainly because it is marginally faster.
I have read somewhere that IS is capable of improving the speed by 3 stops. This advantage over the whole range of 70-200 would not compensate for the loss ?
Ketan

 

[EOS_JD]

IS doesn't stop subject motion though! You need to think how you are using the lens. If you need to use the lens in lowish light, the extra stop is a huge bonus - 1 stop really can make all the difference in getting a blurry image or a sharp one.

Say you are shooting a sport like football or soccer. Subject moves fast and you need a shutter speed of around 1/500th to stop motion. In lower light you'll struggle to get that even with f2.8. f4 is too slow for this type of work. Also maybe you are shooting a wedding couple in a lowly it church. Say they are walking towards you and with f4 the fastest shutter you get is 1/30th! (pretty common for me). This is just too slow but with f2.8 I can get 1/60th and a sharp image. That extra stop could be crucial in many other circumstances.

Don't get me wrong the f4IS is a superb lens but the f2.8 IS is even better!

it's all about what you shoot. If you are using it for paid work, you need the best you can get. If just a hobby, look at your use and your cash available and make your choice. You may be able to sell the f4L IS later on at not much less than you paid if you find it too slow.

I should add there are times also however when the f4 IS is a better lens. It's small and light compared to the 2.8. You can get by without use of a tripod for subjects that are not moving (or are moving very slowly). You can be pretty creative with IS too.

It's a tough one. For me, I shoot weddings and need the f2.8 aperture. Even on this lens though, the IS is a huge bonus.

 

[ketan]

I have on ly shopping list the following: 430EX speed light($225) , 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($684) and a lens that I am debating on this thread. Photography is my hobby, I am just learning.
I feel that from the point of sheer size and mass also I will stick to f/4.
Thanks
Ketan

 

[EOS_JD]

I have on ly shopping list the following: 430EX speed light($225) , 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($684) and a lens that I am debating on this thread. Photography is my hobby, I am just learning.
I feel that from the point of sheer size and mass also I will stick to f/4.
Thanks
Ketan

If you are just learning and it's a hobby, the f4L IS is a perfect starting lens. Super sharp and f4 is still pretty fast. Once you realise the limitations, then you'll be looking to upgrade to the f2.8L IS

 

[RyanLilly]

The 2.8 IS is only $1700 @ B&H(ONLY, LOL). I am planning on buying this lens. Another thing to consider, is If you feel the need to get a longer lens in the future, the 1.4x adapter is only a couple hundered bucks and makes it an effective 448mm f/4 on a crop sensor! the f/4 would be a 5.6, not so great. That option in the future is nice to have; If I ever get to go back to Africa again, thats what I'm Packing.

 

[D40]

Look at the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for $889 That is the lens I will be getting shortly

 

[HDAlien]

I would definitely go with the 2.8 IS/L. I have this lens and am astounded by how great it is. Oh, and hello, first post.

 

[keith204]

here's another vote for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It rules.

As for f/4, f/2.8, you'll find yourself always looking for faster glass...so I'd go with the f/2.8. The sigma isn't too big, it feels natural, and the price is great. The quality is exceptional. The image quality is exceptional too. You can't go wrong with this lens, in my opinion.

 

[RyanLilly]

I think Keith is probably right, If this is just your hobby, why spend loads of extera money, I have heard only positive things about the sigma. Pluss you could always paint it white!

Does that happen to offer some kind of IS?

 

[subimatt]

depends on what your shooting, The 2.8 IS is next on my list.

 

[Joxby]

Buy the Canon 2.8 if its the same price, unless you've got weak wrists or something.
IS....VR.....pffft...doesn't make up for that loss of speed no matter what the hype.
Seriously, 2.8 or bust.

 

[sabbath999]

Me, I would hold out a bit longer and get the 2.8 IS, that way you have both the faster lens AND IS.