70-200mm L

<p>At some point in the near future (ie when i've got enough money) i plan on getting a 70-200mm L lens. Of course if i had enough money i would get the 2.8 IS. But I don't, so heres my question, should i go for the F4 IS or F2.8 none IS. The reason i ask is that they're both similar prices.</p>

<p>If it helps i have a 7D.</p>

Depends on what you are shooting at..for action or indoor sport..buy the 2.8 one..IS will do you no good..since you'll need as fast shutter speed as possible..but for landscape and still object..the IS will be a better option..IS in the long end is very helpful, and not to mention the half in weight that you are going to carry around while shooting landscape will also make you happier..

 

Hope this helps..

<p>I'm studying photojournalism, and currently enjoy shooting demonstrations and protests among other things, I know the F4IS will be good in these situations (with plenty of light). But could i getaway with shooting at F4 when covering low light sport events? I guess that's the dilema.</p>

<p>I use my 70-200/4 IS L all the time; it's my favourite zoom. There are times when I wish it went to f/2.8, but I think that its light weight and portability make up for this "deficiency." I wouldn't consider getting a telephoto longer than 135mm without IS. So I would recommend the slower IS zoom over the faster non-IS one.</p>

<p>To confess, I am looking at the 70-200/2.8 IS L II, but it'll be a long while before I'll be able to afford it.</p>

<p>I just faced the same choice and got the 4 IS. My logic was this. I lug my gear around a lot, and the 4 weighs far less (and is much narrower). IS is very helpful at 200mm, especially on a crop sensor. The difference between the lenses is only one stop, so I can compensate by increasing ISO one stop, at the cost of a bit more noise. For what I do, I rarely want the very narrow DOF one gets at f/2.8. But it is all a matter of your own uses and preferences.</p>

<p>If sport is a big thing for you, IMHO, "f4" doesn't work that well for gym and ice ring sport. It also doesn't yield good shutter speed/iso combo later in the afternoon shadow. With the non-IS, you still can get some help with the monopod. Don't know how a monopod do in protest and demonstrations however :-) </p>

If you include low light sports event in your shooting then I guess that is settled..not to mention demonstrations and stuff are considered action shooting..they won't pose for you hehe..if I were you then 2.8 it is..or consider also the 85mm 1.8 or 100mm F 2.0 for more speed, light weight and less public attracting under those circumstances depending on your usual shooting range..

<p>I went with f/4 IS and could not be happier. For me IS easily makes up for that 1 stop difference. Plus the wait issue of 2.8 was too much for me. But if you shoot sports a lot then 2.8 probably would be a better choice.</p>

<p>If you have no need for IS and can tote around a monopod, then the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM would be the better choice. Buy it used so you can sell it later at minimal loss (if any).</p>

<p>I also suggest going after a used 2.8 L. Many sell off non IS versions to get the IS so you can probably get a great deal. Its an awesome lens even without IS.</p>

<p>For the f/2.8 non-IS:</p>

<ul>

<li>slightly smaller DOF at f/2.8</li>

<li>slightly more OOF background at f/2.8</li>

<li>can shoot one stop lower light when limited by subject motion blur</li>

</ul>

<p>For the f/4 IS:</p>

<ul>

<li>a bit smaller/lighter</li>

<li>3-4 additions "stops" in low light when hand held camera stability is the issue</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I have both of these lenses and use them both (on many bodies including the 7D). It really depends on what you shoot - IQ is pretty much the same for both lenses. The reason I have both illustrates what they are good at.<br>

I use the F2.8 lens almost exclusively for sport - mainly ice hockey (where it is very dark and you really need the F2.8) and for ski racing (where you can get away with the F4 at a push). The lack of IS is not a big deal with this lens - especially for action sports. This lens is not fully sealed (there is no seal between the lens and the body) but the lens is rugged - mine has spent a lot of time in snow in -25C with no ill effects. This lens is also probably better for portrait use as you get a shallower DOF although on the 7D I find that the DOF with either lens is not great for dramatic portraits (on full frame the F2.8 is good).<br>

I bought the F4 IS much later as I never found that I took the F2.8 out with me just in case I needed it. the F4 is more compact and half the weight so I find that I frequently throw it in my bag. The F4 is a great lens and the IS works very well it gets you 1-2 stops better than the F2.8 lens with ease and you can probably match Canon's 4 stop claim (i.e. 3 stops better than the F2.8) with care.<br>

If you want a general purpose lens the F4IS is the one to get as it is smaller, much lighter, has the same IQ, is fully sealed and will focus (slightly) closer. I find my F4IS is the one I take out more but if you need F2.8 to stop action and shoot indoor sports then you need the F2.8 lens. Of course having both is an even better option.</p>

<p><strong><em>"But could i getaway with shooting at F4 when covering low light sport events? I guess that's the dilema."</em></strong></p>

<p>No often you can't. And sometimes F/2.8 is too slow also.</p>

<p>You have told us the camera you use, but have not stated what other lenses you have?</p>

<p>Perhaps the 70 200/4IS is the answer . . . AND 85/1.8 AND 135/2</p>

<p>A kit is A KIT and not one lens purchase, in isolation.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>I'm shooting everything from portraits to sports, landscapes, closeups of flowers and stuff, birds and shit with my Canon EF 70-200/4,0L USM lens in just about any lightcondition on a 7D body and it works fine. It handles action like a champ even though it's no 2,8 lens, all sharp and ultracrisp shots with nice dof and bokeh. Can't complain at all about that lens as it's worth every penny it costs and i paid 600 euro for it here in Sweden.</p>

<p>/ Magnus</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm shooting ... shit with my Canon EF 70-200/4,0L USM lens..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You really need to branch out to more interesting subjects...</p>

<p>Even consider buying the version I of the f/2.8 IS...despite all the crowing about how the II outperforms it, it's still a fine lens, and many are selling theirs to get the II. But really, unless you think you're going to be shooting wide open a lot, you'll probably find the f/4 IS to be sufficient.</p>

<p>I own the 70-200 IS 2.8 Mk II, had a Mk I and have used the 4 non-IS for various purposes (from weddings, to seniors, to kids photography).<br>

If you are going to be in low light at all (i.e. a church) don't short-change yourself, and get the 2.8. even the non-IS version is fantastic in those conditions. And on a 7d, the results are even better.<br>

The f/4 version just doesn't give you enough light in low light conditions when hand holding. If you are having to crank up your ISO to keep your shutter at a desirable speed, you will get too grainy on the 7d. If you go too low with the shutter...you know the result. It doesn't seem like it should or would be that different, but after shooting with the 2.8, then the 4, I was surprised by how much better the 2.8 is.<br>

Even if you have to scrape for the 2.8, you'll be much happier in the end. Good luck.</p>

<p>Beside aperture and IS...</p>

<p>If you already have filters, you may consider that the f4.0 IS has a 67mm filter size compared to 77mm for the f2.8. And, if you ever want to attached your 70-200 to a tripod, one is included with the f2.8, not with the f4.0.</p>

<p>Buying a separate tripod mount ring and a few filters might end up with an additional spending of a few hundreds bucks.</p>

<p>Thats up to you and what works better for you, there is no clear cut "better" lens. The f/4 IS is lighter and the IS compensates for more than the one stop that you gain with the f/2.8, however IS won't stop action. If you need fast shutter speeds, the 2.8 would make more sense. Both will work well in low light, but the IS will enable you to successfully handhold at low shutter speeds, this also means your subject has to have no or little movement.</p>

<p>I use the 70-200 f2.8 L non-IS with the 7D.</p>

<p>Reasoning: </p>

<p>Price<br>

lack of complexity<br>

subject suitability<br>

I use my lens for sports and motorsports, so I'm usually wanting higher shutters than the IS would actually help with.<br>

I also carry a monopod which negates the need for IS for my applications.<br>

The extra speed (although I use my lens at f4 rather than wide open, old habit, if I had the f4 version I would use it at f5.6) is useful, in poor conditions I use a kata rain jacket to protect the lens and the camera so the lack of weather sealing doesn't bother me.<br>

The AF system is great on the 7D, it is superfast with an f2.8 lens, I track using the centre point with AiServo, the extra speed and extra AF sensitivity from the faster lens helps loads with tracking.<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott1shpau1/4697791866/" alt="" /><br>

If you decide to use a teleconvertor the f2.8 version lets you retain AF with the 2x version, albeit with reduced performance.<br>

The f2.8 lens is a hefty beast, I'm in the habit of using a monopod anyway. The mk1 version of the f2.8 IS isn't quite as sharp especially on a high res camera like the 7D, the series 2 is more than double the price. My money is on the f2.8 non-IS.</p>

<p><em>"The f2.8 lens [i.e. the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L USM] is a hefty beast, I'm in the habit of using a monopod anyway. </em><strong><em>The mk1 version of the f2.8 IS isn't quite as sharp</em></strong><em>."</em></p>

<p>I agree and I believe Canon do also. This point is often not noted. This point also applies to the use of the two Canon Tele-converters.</p>

<p>To the Original Question, I would still like to know what other lenses the OP has in the kit.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>To answer your question william, just one, a 17-55mm 2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Thanks.<br /><br />Then, IMO, if you only have the cash for either the F/2.8 or the F/4 IS, then you need to establish:<br /><br /><br />> how most it is going to be used.<br />> If you will grow the lens kit further.<br />> what is the worst case scenario.<br />> can you really wait and get the 2.8IS.</p>

<p>I am assuming that you really can't wait to get the F/2.8IS. Also I assume, from what you have written, that Low Light Sport is not something that you will cover a lot.</p>

<p>But thinking about the worst case scenario: if you do need to use F/2.8 @ ISO3200 for a sporting gig - then that will be better than F/4 at ISO6400 . . . then I would ask the same "worst case scenario" in reverse . . . for all other needs, will use this lens (i.e. rallies, protests public, forums portraits - - - etc) will I be able to shoot at a Tv and ISO that will allow hand holding or will I have a monopod or tripod to assist?</p>

<p>Now the point is at Protests and Public rallies etc – I expect the IS will not be of very much use because notionally you will be shooting at a Tv such the motion of the subject is stopped - and that would be around 1/400s approx (slowest) which should be adequate Tv to hand hold at 200mm on a 7D with good shutter execution.</p>

<p>So I think (as others have mentioned), you should list out the shooting scenarios where you think you will NEED the IS function: for example low light portraiture – and for example, in these cases will you have a tripod?</p>

<p>It is good you have the 17 to 55IS, because you can establish, to some degree how much you rely on IS and also how much you rely on F/2.8 . . . I suggest you interrogate your shooting habits with this lens and for that be a guide to you.</p>

<p>I do think that apropos the low light sport, the type of sport and the <strong><em>shooting distance and the ability to move</em></strong> you might have is important to consider, because for example, if you think you might be only occasionally doing a particular indoor sport – e.g. Basketball or Swimming and you will have the ability to MOVE then very likely the 85/1.8 will suffice for this job.</p>

<p>For example a second hand 85/1.8 might be available to you and not stretch the budget too far. . . and maybe better anyway, being 1⅓ stops faster than the f/2.8 . . .</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your 17-55 f/2.8 IS is one of my very favorite lenses. Good choice. For the 70-200 slot, my personal preference is the f/2.8 IS. There have been a number of great responses that offer alternative choices, and all are valid, as the suggested choices are all fine lenses, and the basic question really centers on personal choice in the end.</p>

<p>My preference for the 2.8 IS version began when it was the only choice offered, and then evolved over time. My lens is pretty old now, and it was really the first premium zoom lens that forced me to be patient with my slow-growth lens budget at the time, and hold out for what I wanted, as opposed to settle for something else when my budget reached the point where that was possible.</p>

<p>Over the years, I have owned and worked with other choices in the category, but overall, I discovered that my old 2.8 IS has not been a burden for me to carry, as I choose it more often than the others, even when weight is a healthy consideration. Then again, I rarely give a high priority to weight when it isn't so important that a pocket cam like the G9 would be a better choice than a DSLR in the first place.</p>

<p>I don't care for neck straps at all, so my cameras all have battery grips and hand straps. That might be a factor as well, since the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mounted on an xxD body sporting a grip and hand strap is nicely supported by the back of my hand when walking, and all five fingers remain relaxed, no matter the pace or distance traveled. Hanging from my neck, the same setup would likely become an out of sync, free swinging battering ram to my body. Not fun at all. Even at events, heavy camera/lens combos clipped to belt mounted hammer hooks by their hand straps have little jiggle room, or effect on my gait, so even carrying two or three cameras for an extended period is pretty well pain-free.</p>

<p>Back to the lens itself, my example has always delivered sharp images, even wide open, and with up to two stacked 1.4x tele extenders mounted. I have posted a number of examples here in the past, and although I have used some examples of the 2.8 IS lens that were less than pleasingly sharp wide open, I think that is the exception, rather than the rule. The millions of fine images of all descriptions captured through this lens over time by amateur and pro photographers alike over the years tend to support that thought.</p>

<p>I think it's fair to expect that comparing ideal examples of the old and the new versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lenses will show the new version to raise the performance bar over the widely acclaimed old model "standard bearer" in most all respects, but it also raises the price-per-mm bar for an f/2.8 70-200 IS zoom to the "insanely painful" level. Evidently though, the old series "standard bearer" still owns the prize for the top performing 70-200 f/2.8 IS zoom in the "extremely painful" price range and below, as old workhorse examples like mine that have been in the field for years sell on the used market today for about the same price they cost when they were purchased new.</p>

<p>The f/4 version, (ideal build for ideal build) also offers some measurable improvements over the old f/2.8 IS series, including a bit broader range IS implementation. It's also significantly lighter, and it's budget point is reached much faster. Still, for the variety of uses I have found for this class of lenses over time, the extra stop offered by the f/2.8 model has been a serious asset in many ways, and it cannot be replaced by high ISO camera sensors, or extended IS range lenses.</p>

<p>A few examples would be the additional full stop of shallow DOF available for use. APS-C cameras are already at about a one stop disadvantage here relative to FF, so that extra stop gives the APS-C shooter a distinct additional level of creative choice in subject isolation (field of view for field of view) that a FF shooter with an f/4 lens takes for granted, and an APS-C shooter with f/4 lenses never experienced in the first place. You can live without it, as it will be tough to miss a feature you never had with a particular camera, and that makes it easier to chalk up the differences in apparent DOF between similar scenes captured with APS-C and FF cameras to be the nature of the beast, and not simply a function of lens aperture. It makes a difference. Is it worth it? For me, big time, but now, that's your call.</p>

<p>F/2.8 vs f/4 within the same zoom range also offers a distinct edge to the f/2.8 lens in terms of AF lock speed and accuracy. With recent cameras, the edge is even more noticeable. Even in live view, and with magnification employed, or plain manual focus mode, the faster lens delivers focus "snap" and speed over a broader range of conditions, and offers no optical trade offs to get there.</p>

<p>If you ever plan on using one or more tele extenders with your zoom, having f/2.8 on tap makes life easier overall compared to an f/4 max aperture lens, and the extra stop makes AF not only easier, but often, it simply makes AF possible.</p>

<p>As for IS, if it is offered, I won't be without it. It has never failed me on any premium Canon EF-s or EF lens, and it tends to produce sharper images in general, as well as otherwise nearly impossible images quite often. I much prefer to choose to turn it off from time to time, rather than wish I had it to turn on most of the time. IS costs more at first, but aside from it's utility value, lenses that offer a choice tend to hold their used value much better with IS than without it....</p>

<p>You mentioned that you now own a 7D. For me, having f/2.8 is already a bonus to a crop shooter, but with the 7D, you will be tempted to shoot video. The extra stop, extra mass, and the IS of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens over the f/4, or non IS versions really enhance video shooting for me. I'm a rank beginner in DSLR video, but the advice I have been offered from some power hitters locally has panned out in practice so far, and I'm still happy I kept the big f/2.8 IS zoom.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that I posted this as a personal view of your question from my perspective of "what does the f/2.8 IS lens do for me", as opposed to an "expensive is always better" line of BS. Also, I have no argument with those who came to different conclusions with their lens kits. The reason lens choices are offered is because different people have different needs and priorities. Give it all careful thought, and you won't be hurt, no matter where you land.</p>

<p>By the way, I completely agree with suggestions that a lens kit is not just a kit lens, and that you really should own a good, affordable fast prime or two. The 50 f/1.4, or the 85 f/1.8 are two great examples. Your 7D can really exploit the speed and image potential of those lenses. They serve different purposes as a function of their different lengths, but when f/2.8 is just not fast enough (often), they bring it on.</p>