Comparing say F4l IS to 2.8l non IS

D

Duncan.F

Messages
1,452
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
A bit puzzled,I am thinking of upgrading from my 70-200L to, well something better. I do use a lot indoors for sports and I do struggle with the light. The F4 is a fantastic lens in the outdoor situations but I was reading another thread about the trade off between weight etc compared to the 2.8IS but this is my question.
Assuming you had the same conditions, using a 70-200F4 L IS as opposed to a non IS 2.8 which in the poor light/ sports [mainly netball] scenario would do the better?

Cheers,

Dunc
 
Dunc,

I'd put my money on the f/2.8........

Indoor sports tend to be quite fast (except snooker) and I assume that you mean gymnasium type sports akin to the netball you highlight.

The IS won't be a big benefit with subjects that are moving rapidly but the extra stop will help considerably.

My two pennarth'

Bob

Editted....Have you given any consideration to a body that will cope better at higher ISO ratings...a 5D for instance....unless you need rapid fire and 4fps and above.
 
I would think that the 2.8 would be more useful then the IS when trying to get sharp results from fast action.....but both would be nice :D
 
If its any help I had a problem with indoor pictures (horses) with a 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS mostly at 200 and I found the legs were blurred even at trot. The next time at the same place I used a 70-200 2.8 without IS and got much better results, to the point that a couple of people wanted pictures (no payment, I just email them through).

I would go with the 2.8 and no IS, the lens I have is heavier but I'm ok with that as its good in low light.
 
I'd go for the f/2.8 non-IS. You want to be keeping the shutter speed up, to avoid motion blur, so IS won't be of enormous value to you if you have reasonably good technique.

I have 3 varieties of the 70-200L (f/4 IS, f/2.8 non-IS, f/2.8 IS) and they're all cracking lenses, but the f/2.8 variants are much bigger and heavier than the f/4 variants. That might be something to bear in mind. Another option, if you find yourself working at the 200mm end a lot, is the 200mm f/2.8L. It's much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 (it's about the same weight as the 70-200 f/4 IS), and if anything it's even sharper. It's much cheaper too - under £500 to buy and only £23/week to hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top