Which EF 70-200mm to get? I keep changing my mind!!!

[prodigy2k7]

Want lens for: outdoor sports. (99.9% daytime/mid-day). horse racing, surfing (200mm is a little short for surfing but I go on the pier to get closer shots) and whatever else I may want to shoot.

I am looking for an upgrade to my 70-300mm and I have been looking at the 70-200 lenses for quite awhile. I wish I could get the 2.8 IS but that is just way too expensive right now ($1900?). I said okay Ill get the 70-200mm F/4 (non-IS) for $650, then i started looking at the two mid-range ones (f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-is). I then started to want the F/4 IS because I wanted the IS but now that I think about it, I dont think ill ever use IS except for panning, but not actual low shutter speeds. The focal length is too long for what I would use in-doors. The F/2.8 would seem nice, as I just can use a faster shutter if it gets a little cloudy and require a faster shutter for daytime sports.

I do have the XTi and the ISO performance is really bad. I dont even use 400, just 100-200. Not sure if that helps me decide 2.8 or IS.
weather sealing isnt an issue as I dont shoot in that kind of weather, nor do I have a weather sealed body. The 2.8 is heavier but Ive hand-held the 2.8 IS in-shop and I dont mind it much. F/4 non-is came out in 1999 and IS version ins 2006, any optical quality changes during that time? Is the only real difference IS and weather sealing? Everyone says the F/4 is sharper but I can stop the 2.8 down to F/4 aswell to get sharper.

The 2.8 non-IS came out in 1995! Thats like 15 years ago, think canon will update it? (I wont be able to afford the updated version anyway haha)
So the IS versions are newer and weather sealed while the non-IS versions are older. Does this really matter much? I know lenses last awhile.

Im so in the middle of things I cant make up my mind!!! maybe someone can give me some insight...

FYI, it will take me awhile to save up but I plan on getting 70-200, then 24-70, then 100-400

Also I kind of liked the idea of 2.8 cuz it has 77mm filter size and so does the other lenses i listed above (i think?) So I could share a CPL between them. But that isnt a huge decision maker.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I say just buy f/4 non IS used right now. YOu can always sell it later with not much to lose. If the shutter speed is super fast on a bright day, I would think the IS is not that critical?

 

[bigtwinky]

I hate to say it, but get the 2.8 IS. This way, you can throw a 1.4x extender and still be shooting at f/4 constant. You can then get closer for the surfing images. Or a 2x extender and shoot at f/5.6 constant.

Do you shoot without IS on your 70-300 when at 300mm? And get sharp images? If so, and budget is an issue, I'd get the 2.8 non IS over the 4 IS. But really, save for the 2.8 IS. I got mine for $1700 new in April (that is Canadian prices). $400 difference between it and the non IS version.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I hate to say it, but get the 2.8 IS. This way, you can throw a 1.4x extender and still be shooting at f/4 constant. You can then get closer for the surfing images. Or a 2x extender and shoot at f/5.6 constant.

Do you shoot without IS on your 70-300 when at 300mm? And get sharp images? If so, and budget is an issue, I'd get the 2.8 non IS over the 4 IS. But really, save for the 2.8 IS. I got mine for $1700 new in April (that is Canadian prices). $400 difference between it and the non IS version.

My lens version is non is. It's in my sig.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I'm with bigtwinky - if you can afford it, get the 2.8 IS - it really is a great lens

 

[Derrel]

ANY of them!!!!!! The newer models seem to have the better optical quality, so the f/4 model with Image Stabilizer is actually a bit better optically than the f/2.8 L-IS first generation model, which is like a decade old now...the f/4 IS model is noticeably better than the older, 67mm filter thread non-IS f/4 model...but still, ANY Canon 70-200-L series is quite a decent lens,and if you buy a used one, your money is totally safe...a used one can be sold for what you payed for it,or maybe just a little bit less, after one or two years' worth of use!

I have used the older f/4 non-IS model,and I liked its small size and discreet profile...it's not so big, and fat, and honkin'....I ended up buying the 2.8-IS model, and am pretty happy with that performance-wise, but do wish I also owned the smaller,lighter f/4 model for casual use, weekends, travel kinda' stuff. When I bought the 2.8 IS model, the new f/4 IS model was NOT on the market. I think on this type of lens, buying the highest optical quality is one approach, and that would be the brand-spanking new Mark II f/2.8 model, or the f/4 IS model....the newer lenses have the higher MTF function optimization, for the newer sensors...the older lenses,while quite good, are not as high-performing for people who are really critical, or are planning on going to the ultra-high rez cameras of the future.

The thing is...a lens like a 70-200 can last for 15,20 years...you can buy once, buy right...or buy whatever, use it, trade up later, re-acquire,etc. Your choice!

 

[bigtwinky]

I hate to say it, but get the 2.8 IS. This way, you can throw a 1.4x extender and still be shooting at f/4 constant. You can then get closer for the surfing images. Or a 2x extender and shoot at f/5.6 constant.

Do you shoot without IS on your 70-300 when at 300mm? And get sharp images? If so, and budget is an issue, I'd get the 2.8 non IS over the 4 IS. But really, save for the 2.8 IS. I got mine for $1700 new in April (that is Canadian prices). $400 difference between it and the non IS version.

My lens version is non is. It's in my sig.

But your post says "I am looking for an upgrade to my 70-300mm" and your sig says "75-300".

I got confused between the two.

Either way, whatever I posted stands. If budget is really an issue and you can't save up that $400 difference to get the 2.8 IS, then get the 2.8 without IS over the 4 with IS.

Check the used market as well. With the 2.8 IS MkII being out, some people are upgrading and you might find a used MkI somewhere for not too expensive

 

[prodigy2k7]

I hate to say it, but get the 2.8 IS. This way, you can throw a 1.4x extender and still be shooting at f/4 constant. You can then get closer for the surfing images. Or a 2x extender and shoot at f/5.6 constant.

Do you shoot without IS on your 70-300 when at 300mm? And get sharp images? If so, and budget is an issue, I'd get the 2.8 non IS over the 4 IS. But really, save for the 2.8 IS. I got mine for $1700 new in April (that is Canadian prices). $400 difference between it and the non IS version.

My lens version is non is. It's in my sig.

But your post says "I am looking for an upgrade to my 70-300mm" and your sig says "75-300".

I got confused between the two.

Either way, whatever I posted stands. If budget is really an issue and you can't save up that $400 difference to get the 2.8 IS, then get the 2.8 without IS over the 4 with IS.

Check the used market as well. With the 2.8 IS MkII being out, some people are upgrading and you might find a used MkI somewhere for not too expensive

Thanks. On iPhone i forgot which I had 70 or 75. That's why I said check my sig lol. I don't have IS tho that's for sure. I may get the 2.8 as I'm already saving extra for this lens lol.

 

[Overread]

My advice is to save up and get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 and a 1.4 and a 2* teleconverter - I would also say hold off on the 2*Tc and get the new ones coming out in christmas (the M3) since they have improved performance and the 2*TC is the most demanding.

I say this because with a 2*TC and that lens you get a 140-400mm f5.6 IS lens that has similar image quality at 400mm to the 100-400mm at the 400m mark.

Thus getting this one lens covers both of your needs of a fast 70-200mm and a good versatile longer zoom lens.