70-200 f4 is or the 70-200 f2.8 non is

[zeddy]

i have been looking at buying a 70-200 canon lens and my problem is i don't know which one to get.money is a issue as i am buying the 24-70 f2.8 and i also need the 70-200 i can afford the 2.8 non-is or the f4 with is it will be mainly used in good light but i want the flexabilty to use it in lower lighting conditions i was thinking the f4 with is and in low light i can use a falsh,does sound ok
zsolt

[ozonejunkie]

Something else you might want to think about is weight. The f4 version of the lens will be much lighter then the 2.8 version. I myself use a 70-200 f4 Non IS, and am really happy with it, admittedly I have never got the opportunity to use one of the 2.8 lineups!

It really does depend on what you want it for. If you are after it for portrait work, or anything that requires a very soft bokeh, then the 2.8 is the way to go, if you need it for low light shots of moving things (people etc.), then the 2.8 is also the way to go. If you desire it for low light pics of inanimate objects, then the f4 IS is probably slightly better (the IS is 3 stop).

I predominantly use mine for motor sport, so 2.8 is of minimal importance to me, but the lighter lens makes it much nicer to carry around all day.

I don't know if it is important to you, but the f4 will not come with a tripod collar, but the f2.8 will.

Just my thoughts!
Tristan

[zeddy]

i would like to get into wedding photography some time in the future .
zsolt

[devilla101]

If you are looking into doing Wedding Photography the 70-200 2.8 would be your lens. However I would question the 24-70 purchase as it won't give you the wide angle because of the 30D 1.6 crop factor. Why not purchase the 17-55 2.8 IS? Slightly cheaper and has great optics plus it can give you the wide angle.

[ozimax]

Remember the 17-55 @.8 IS is only for 1.6 crop cameras and is very expensive, but evidently a supreme lens.

As for 70-200's, they're all good. This year I have owned the 70-200 F4 (non IS) and it again is a superlative lens in every respect, not weather proofed though. It is L all the way and superbly built.

I now have th 2.8 IS version, it is a superb lens. Looking back I most probably would not have purchased the IS if I had to do it all again. I rarely use IS but many photographers swear by it. Many wedding photographers largely swear by the F2.8 IS version (as well as the 24-70 lens). You're covered all the way from 24-200 in 2.8 glass.

The 70-200 F4 IS is, by all reports, a magnificent piece of glass, weatherproofed, 4 stop IS, lightweight and sharp as a tack, but it's not cheap.

Just my two bob's worth.

Ozi.

[Kris]

I suggest the F2.8 IS if you can afford it. The F4 and F2.8 are very different. A stop of light could be the difference between getting the shot, or not at all. The IS is going to help you handhold in that low light.

I think F4 is simply far too slow for anything remotely dim.

Go the F2.8 IS, you won't regret it. I love mine - don't worry about people talking about the weight, imo its a non issue. If you want to get into weddings the F2.8 IS is a must. If you do outdoor sports with lots of light the F4 IS would suit you better

[moz]

i have been looking at buying a 70-200 canon lens and my problem is i don't know which one to get.money is a issue as i am buying the 24-70 f2.8 and i also need the 70-200 i can afford the 2.8 non-is or the f4

I would question the 24-70 on a crop camera - that range is "normal to nearly telephoto" and I don't use it anywhere near as much as the 16-35, so I suspect the 17-55/2.8 IS would be a better choice. On full frame, of course, the 24-70 is brilliant. If you're getting a 70-200 I suggest the combo of 17-55 and 70-200 would cover most situations, and if that means you can afford the f/2.8IS versions of both you're on a winner. Note that the 17-55 holds its value pretty well, second hand copies are both rare and close to new prices.

Other lenses that might help are the Sigma 30/1.8 plus the Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, but you'll probably only appreciate those after you've had the zooms for a while.

[garyr]

Hi zeddy,

I am in the same dilemna. Until a few days ago I was going to go for the F4 IS, but I did some reading on the use of extenders - I plan to get one later - and I think I have changed my mind to the F2.8 (without IS).

Does anyone have experience with using an extender with these lenses that they can share please?

Thanks
Gary

[hyperhiryu]

It's a no brainer, 2.8 > 4.0

[outtram]

do you think the 70-200 f2.8 is will be updated this year at all? i know the IS on the F4 is better than the is on the f2.8?