Yet another 70-200 question!

[failingretina]

:razz:

Right, i know the forum is flooded with 70-200 L questions, however i've got quite a specific question which i haven't seen answered completely.

So...

I do a lot of low light shooting (gigs, indoor etc.)

I'll be using a Canon 50d which i find i can only use successfully upto ISO 1250.

I can't afford a new f/2.8 IS (mark 1) so do I go for the f/4 IS and noise reduction software for the time being then get an 85 f/1,8 or 50 f/1.4 or look around the second hand market for the f/2.8 IS? (they seem to be snapped up VERY quickly)

Also is there much between them in terms of IQ, a few graphs tend to suggest the f/4 IS is sharper?

Thanks, and sorry for another 70-200 thread

 

[wicker_man]

I shoot gigs with a 40D and find it acceptable even at ISO3200 when processed from RAW (just make sure you nail exposure).

I owned a 70-200mm f4L IS for a short while and it is very sharp wide open, you don't really see much improvement stopping down. But, the IS can't freeze motion, so not ideal for moving subjects. It is handy for the long focal lengths handheld though.

Personally for gigs, I use a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (previously a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but that broke) and it is fine for most situations, and a 50mm f1.8 for challenging lighting.

 

[desantnik]

Don't forget that the aperture isn't just useful for the actual imaging bit... the wider the aperture the better chance the AF has of getting focus (it opens it all the way up for the focusing part, then stops down to whatever the metering/setting is for the shot)

So even if you are shooting at f32, its f2.8 for the focusing bit.

f2.8 is twice the amount of light as f4. I wouldn't want to shoot f4 glass indoors or in the gloom.