Can't decide- 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/2.8 non IS

[alex_h2]

I have a limited budget to spend on a tele lens. These two lenses are

comparable in price here in Canada. Here is my dilema. Is the 1 stop on the

f/2.8 worth it over the IS on the f/4? I don't shoot indoor sports or anything

like that, but as a protrait lens, the f/2.8 would come in handy. The f/4 is

also weather sealed, but the f/2.8 is not and I hate seeing dust in a lens - a

pet peeve of mine - I know it doesn't affect IQ.

 

What would you guys recommend? I'll say that the lens will primarily be used

for outdoor wildlife, some motorsports and a little bit of people shooting in

the streets. Does anyone who has the f/2.8 non IS have an issue with dust in

the lens? Thanks everyone.

[kenny_c]

How about a 70-200 F4 and a 135mm F2? You got all the bases covered. Works out to be roughly the price of the 2.8

[alex_h2]

That's an interesting twist. The 135 f/2 is an an outstanding lens. More food for thought.

[david_lau3]

I am growing older and my hands are more shaky than before, so I won't buy a non IS tele lens any more. 70-200/f2.8 non-IS is automatically out of consideration. This is why I just bought the 70-200/f4 IS.

 

A very sharp lens. Already very sharp at f4 and not much improvement by shopping down. I test it against my 200/f2.8 and 180/f3.5 macro on 5D. It is as sharp as the 200/f2.8 at same aperture and just slightly less sharp than the 180/f3.5 macro. IS works wonderfully.

 

I also test it with the Canon 1.4X against 300/f4 IS. 300/f4 only has a slight edge.

[phoneguy]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. I bought it used on ebay from a reporter from the Minnesota Star Tribune. It was in mint condition, was in the first gulf war, and has been all over the world. (Supposedly).

 

I have never had a problem with the lens, and still use a ton. It has some dust in it, but it isn't noticable at all. I've even dropped it a couple of times.

 

It is an outstanding portrait lens, and I would hate to give up the 2.8 speed. It's an all around great lens.

[pto189]

Unless you plan to use the lens with a tripod most of the time or have very excellent skills to hold the camera and lens, forget both non IS options. spend $550 for the 70-300 IS or $1250 for the 70-200 f/4 IS or $1600 for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. You can compare between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS because under 100mm, hand holding is possible. To me, beyond 100mm without IS is not practical. I have the 24-105 and still keep my 24-70 for indoor running kids. But I sold the 70-200 f/4 and replaced with the new 70-300 IS. I will wait for a couple of months or until Dell is offering 20% off to buy the new 70-200 f/4 IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has never been on my list becasue of its size and weight. To me the 24-70 is bulky and heavy enough to carry around.

[leopoldstotch]

Definately the f2.8, I've never had a dust problem with mine, and it performs very well. Also, <a href="http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=107263">Vistek is having a sale</a> on the 70-200 right now, its only $1404

[saurabh1]

I know it is a tough choice. I have been debating over this for quite some time now and I think if I were you I would go with f/4 IS simply because you cannot do without IS.

[denisgermain]

if you need SPEED... go for the 2.8 - as the IS will not help in low light conditions if you want FREEZE a hockey or basketball player...

+ give it one or two generations and cameras will all have IS built in!

[gib robinson]

Alex,

 

I own both the f/4 and the f/2.8 IS zooms. For the kind of work I often do (photographing children in classrooms) IS is essential. If you work mostly in good light, IS isn't essential. However, most of us like to be able to photograph in relatively low light, even outdoors. If you want that option, plan to buy an IS lens. If the subject isn't moving much it can add 2-4 stops.

 

I bought the f/4 because the f/2.8 is heavy. If I'm working outdoors and walking around a lot, I want the lighter lens. In most circumstances, even indoors, I can use f/4. Often I prefer using the f/4 because of the added depth of field; but sometimes the extra stop is crucial. If kids are moving around, I can stop their movements more completely with the f/2.8.

 

If I had to choose between the two lenses, I would take the f/4 because of lightness and size. I can stick that lens in my vest and carry it. I can't do that with the f/2.8.

[musubi1000]

I too would also mention the lighter weight. An important consideration if you go hiking and such. IS is one of the greatest technologies created for photography in the last 50 years. I am utterly surprised at how often I see camera movement based blur from people with telephotos, even in bright light situations. IS could have made the images better. I too get a few blurries when I get sloppy with a non-IS lens. IS can make a huge difference in making an award winner especially since your type of work doesn't require a faster shutter.

[abrepsom1]

Here is another vote for the f/4 IS.

 

I had the f/2.8 IS and can assure you that it is really heavy and bulky. The f/4 is a joy to use, and with its new IS, it can do most things. I am very happy about my decision to get the f/4 instead of the f/2.8.

 

Regards

 

Aender

[m_barbu1]

There are many instances where at f/4, my shutter speed would be too slow, at ISO 1600. I won't buy a lens slower than f/2.8 any more, after having owned one L and two non-Ls, all with IS, but with slow variable maximum apertures.

[yakim_peled1]

I sold two fine lenses (85/1.8 and 200/2.8) for a sole reason: To have IS. IMHO a tele lens without IS is almost blasphemy :-)

 

Yes, the background blur will be much more blurred when using f/2.8 rather than f/4 but giving up IS for that? No.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.