70-200 f2.8 non IS vs 70-200 f4 IS

[savas_kyprianides]

All 70-200 versions are very good. You need to get the one that suits your shooting conditions. The 2.8 IS is a great choice

as you get maximum versatility from the lens, both action and static, good light and low light, all without having to swap

lenses when working within it's focal length.

[frank]

David

 

"With my 70-200/4 IS I do indoor shots (lower light than in many churches) at f.4 and 1/15 s."

 

That doesn't mean that 1/15 s is the BEST shutter speed. It means hand-holding 1/15 s is possible with the 70-200/4 IS. BTW, during the ceremony in a church there are lots of situations where bride and groom behave like statues.

 

"For real low-light shots I prefer fast fix focal lengths like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 1.8."

 

That's the way I do - and it works.<div></div>

[frank]

Detail, 100 percent from the pic above<div></div>

[frank]

One last comment.

 

The initial question was: "I have the 24-70 f2.8 and love the results I get with it, but I worry that if I get the non IS f2.8 70-200 I'll have trouble getting usable shots without a monopod. So the real question is: Does the 70-200 f4 IS have the ability to focus in low light (I don't mean candle light, but normal church/hall lighting)?"

 

The answer is yes, absolutely.

 

:-)

[andrew_viny]

I too am looking into the same question. I also use the 24-70 as my everyday every situation. My personal feeling is that I'll need to decide if I can scrape by with the f/4 IS as an everyday zoom and just rent the 2.8 IS for the situations when I know I need it. I mean I can hold my 24-70 down to about 1/40 for static objects with pretty acceptable results but given that the 70-200 is much longer and heavier I'm not sure what I'd be able to hold it at. ($30 a day/weekend @ Dodd camera in Cleveland) $1,100 is a strech for me but I know I need that focal length so I'm going to have to bite the bullet here sometime. I think that if I can deal with f/4 I might go that route because it's smaller lighter and has great IS. I plan on setting my camera to Av and locking it at f/4 on my 24-70 for a day to try this out. Best of luck to you.

 

~Andrew

[bob_osullivan]

This can get confusing.

 

The IS does give you more apparent speed but only for still subjects. And this does nothing for AF. The F2.8 versions let in twice as much light as the F4.

 

The 70-200 2.8 IS does cover all your needs but is pretty heavy and big. For only a cerimony it should be fine. But for long days with it you need support.

 

If AF is as much of a concern as having a fast enough shutter speed you might consider covering this range with a couple primes like the 85 1.8 and 135 F2. Both nice light packages, very fast and surgical AF.

[mrkeith]

I fought with my self for a long time on this very issue.

In the end MY needs were maximum shutter in low light for dance recital pictures.

I knew I was going to be shooting everything off a monopod so my movement was of little concern. I went with the f2.8 and haven't thought twice about it.

 

I did dump my 400D for a 40D though.

[francie_baltazar]

you will build some big muscles with the 70/200 f.3.8 - it's incredable heavy and I don't think it is reasonable to carry around at a wedding. I shoot weddings and I have the f4 IS and shoot low light on a tripod 800 IS and get very good photos. then I can carry the lens around for other photos - it is a fabulous outdoor lens for outdoor weddings and bridals - and it's light... if you want a great lens for really low light go with the 50mm 1.2 L it's the best for no flash fabulous wedding photos... btw I would hate to be you with all these opinions... go try them out and see for yourself - I just wouldn't go without the IS...

[steve.elliott]

As Bob pointed out you can use a couple of primes as an alternative. I attended Jeff Ascough's Seminar recently and he made us laugh with his lens selection. He had a distance shot he wanted to get but wanted to wait until something special happened. Now with a big lens and a Canon 1Ds mark III he demontrated how his arms would have tired as he waited and waited - so he used the 135 f2 instead!

[greglynch]

One other thing to consider, as if there aren't enough already, is the true cost difference. The difference in purchase price between the f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS at B&H is $509. Since you said wedding photography is your work, you will take a Section 179 tax deduction on anything you buy. The tax savings on $509, assuming a 20% tax bracket, is $102. So after tax, the difference is only $407.

 

You can also experience the added health benefits and time savings associated with the 2.8 IS - it's heavier, so you will build muscle and lose weight carrying it around. And you will save time by accomplishing that without having to waste time at the gym.

 

See, there are many ways to rationalize spending money on gear. Just thought I would add to the fun here! Get creative, man! One wedding will cover it! Hehehe....

[william_bray1]

If you need to shoot at a 80th you will still need a tripod for the 2.8 non IS, I think on a 24-70 lens you can get away hand holding it by pushing up the ISO.With new cameras on the way that will handle high ISO very well I would go with the f/4 IS than the 2.8 non IS, depending on your body.I have had no problems with the f/4 IS focusing in low light

[william_bray1]

the f/4 IS is a lighter lens and you'll have no problem using it all day. .If it was just £200 difference between the two lenses(70-200 2.8 IS ) no one would buy the f/4 IS.With the money you save you can get the 85mm 1.8 and you'll have a lens when the 70-200 2.8 won't be fast enough