Do I buy Canons 70-200 IS F4 or the 70-200 F2.8 (Non IS)

Oxford_Matt

Oxford_Matt

Messages
1,521
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
No
Help :thinking:

I will shortly be purchasing a Canon 70-200mm L Glass.

However I can not decide between the F4 IS or the 2.8 (Non IS)
Both similar in price.

Ideally the 2.8 IS would be great but almost twice the price.

Thanks
 
What are you going to take pictures of? Depends if you need the extra stop, me, I would go for the 2.8
 
Hmm... faster aperture or IS? Quite a question. For me, the aperture would win every time. After all, if you want a little more stabilisation of the lens, you could always use a monopod.

Additionally, there's the benefit of engaging the more sensitive AF point, too. When I first switched from the f/4 model to the f/2.8 model, I was quite amazed at the focus accuracy improvement. The f/4 is not exactly a poor performer in this regard, either.
 
If you can afford the 2.8 IS MkII it blows both away and won't be due an update for 8 or more years.
 
Great feedback.

I will be using it for outdoor portraiture
And occasionally indoor for Christnings and odd few
Weddings.
I can't justify the extra £1000 for the 2.8 IS.
 
You will when you look at the images :D

The MkII is prime sharp wide open, has improved IS and faster autofocus.

On full frame it comes into it's own.

boy.jpg
 
Aperture every time for me too. IS might make up for the slower shutter speed but it can't replicate the DOF effect or the benefits of a wider aperture to AF in low light. Easy choice if it was me.
 
Thanks for all the info Guys.

I still seem to like the idea of IS.

Can anyone post Image examples using both lenses.

Does the 70-200 F4 L IS have same build as the 2.8 IS Mk II?

Will a F4 IS be better handheld for example in a church or lower aperture with no IS?

I appreciate the 2.8IS is best but that is not being considered due to its price.

Thanks
 
the f/4 70-200s are smaller and lighter than the 2.8 70-200s. bear this in mind.
 
With the correct technique by using a monopod you should be able to get away without ever needing the IS on, plus that f2.8 let's a lot more light in than f4 so you won't be needing to use as high shutter speeds.

Alternatively, you could always check out the Sigma's 2.8 range?
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Thanks for all the info Guys.

I still seem to like the idea of IS.

Can anyone post Image examples using both lenses.

Does the 70-200 F4 L IS have same build as the 2.8 IS Mk II?

Will a F4 IS be better handheld for example in a church or lower aperture with no IS?

I appreciate the 2.8IS is best but that is not being considered due to its price.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Oops, missed this post.

They both have the same build quality, i.e. they are weather sealed. The 2.8 is a lot heavier and also comes with the tripod ring.

I've personally only used the F4 IS, I'll try to get round at uploading a couple of images. I can't show any direct comparisons against the 2.8 though. However this could come in handy.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
I have used both and even though I often use them indoors in low light I still like having IS. The f4 IS is pin sharp and without the budget to go to the f2.8 MKII version, I personally would pick the f4 IS over the non IS f2.8... but as suggested you really should get your hands on one and try it.
 
Normally I'd suggest the f/4 (4 stops of IS rather than 1 stop of aperture which will help in more situations and it's lighter). However for what you want to use it for I'd suggest the f/2.8 as you'll probably be using flash anyway and indoors you'll need the extra stop.
 
Hi out side on a sunny day F/4 i take loads in Spain and the weather is perfect for a F/4 day time, inside 2.8 ?IS, you do a mixture of both and correct me if i am wrong you earn from your photography, there may be some good examples of the 2.8 IS coming on the market soon, as the MRKII is out and about.get all your angles covered

sub £1000,00 for a mint one.


Merc
 
schizophonic said:
F/4 > F/2.8 due to sharpness
Click to expand...


an F/4 is as sharp as a 2.8 given the right conditions for an F/4 plenty of daylight sun and out side, things start to go astray when it low light and inside, this is where the 2.8 delivers. the iS will allow you to shoot in very low light or at distance on a hand held basis, there is more to it than that someone may give a full explanation.

merc
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I will be using it for outdoor portraiture
And occasionally indoor for Christnings and odd few
Weddings.
Click to expand...

For this use it has to be the 2.8, no question. Your uses will have moving subjects, often not need the full 200mm, and will benefit from decreased DOF. This is assuming you don't have a fast prime lens of around 100mm, if you do, keep that for shallow DOF, and get the f/4 to run alongside for different shots.

I have the 2.8, and looking at my metadata over 50% of my social and events photos with it are at 2.8
 
To me the weight is also an important factor,

Both lenses offer dam good IQ & neither will let you down or be found wanting,

if Bokeh depth is important then the 2.8 is maybe the one to go for,

Walks in the local country park ect f4 is maybe more suited,

You could wait and pick up a decent 2nd hand 2.8is that will be a tad more available as other togs turn to mk2,

Al'
 
sezzi said:
To me the weight is also an important factor,

Both lenses offer dam good IQ & neither will let you down or be found wanting,

if Bokeh depth is important then the 2.8 is maybe the one to go for,

Walks in the local country park ect f4 is maybe more suited,

You could wait and pick up a decent 2nd hand 2.8is that will be a tad more available as other togs turn to mk2,

Al'
Click to expand...

i concur.
the weight of the f/4 is very nice, and IQ is outstanding. ive seen side by side reviews that show the f/4 having superior IQ.

either way you will not be disappointed.
 
If you dont need f2.8 go for the f4Lis I have had them all apart from the 2.8mk2 and the f4 was the sharpest.
 
The f2.8 (mki and probably mkii) are heavy beasts, but essential for low-light photography. They work well for candid portraits too, getting the shallow depth of field that makes wedding shots really pop. I would prefer that to IS if the choice were mine. The IS can't freeze motion, so is only really of use if you are taking shots of stationary subjects.
 
Had to make the same decision myself a couple of years ago. Went with the 2.8. Never once regreted it.
Although I swapped it for the 2.8 IS when funds allowed.
Aperture every time for what you're using it for.
 
Thanks again for all the info and feedback on these lenses.

I bit the bullet in the end and purchased a 70-200 F2.8 IS (Mk1) from a member on here.

Hope I made the correct choice???
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Thanks again for all the info and feedback on these lenses.

I bit the bullet in the end and purchased a 70-200 F2.8 IS (Mk1) from a member on here.

Hope I made the correct choice???
Click to expand...

Can't go wrong with that! The best of both worlds (y) Enjoy your new toy once it arrives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top