DSLRUsers.com

I'm about to make my first serious lens purchase and had decided to stretch myself from the Canon 70-200mm f4L to go that bit further to the IS model above. Since then, I've been given the opportunity to get the 2.8L non-IS version for $130 cheaper than the f4L IS (normally about $200 more). This lens is going to have to last me a loooong time and my feeling is that the 2.8 is the better lens, but if the IS gives the equivalent of 3 stops more speed (according to the Canon blurb), would this be the better buy?

I'd really appreciate any thoughts you have, as I have to decide by tomorrow!!! (the opportunity to buy the 2.8 will be gone). Both lenses are through an Australian Canon dealer.

Apologies if this topic has been covered - I've tried multiple searches but the search terms are too common and give too many results to plough through.

Cheers, Muzz.

The f/2.8 is bigger and heavier but has a faster aperture, if you do sports this will be very valuable, f/2.8 also allows you to push backgrounds further out of focus (for portraiture) and will be sharper at f/4 than the f/4L IS. On the other hand the IS will allow you to hand hold better in low light and is also a lighter lens.

For the price difference I would go the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

Thanks Cameron,

most of my photos are of my kids, mainly candid shots but I want to extend my photography so I'm not entirely sure where it will go. My conventional thinking would have lead me immediately to the larger aperture but I've never owned an IS lens and don't know if the trade off in aperture and therefore DOF for the 2.8 vs the weight and IS function on the 4. I know there are horses for courses but I have a feeling I wouldn't regret the 2.8 but may wish I'd gone faster if I bought the 4.

I've got tonight to make up my mind - maybe the answer will come in a dream!!

Thanks for your thoughts - opinions on this forum can be gold.

Cheers, Muzz.

I would check this thread later tonight or tomorrow morning just to see if anyone who has used both these lenses can share their experiences, I have played with the F4L IS and the F2.8L IS but not the F2.8L.

No experience with either but i tend to use lenses at least one stop from open to improve resolution. Youre really looking at only one stop difference.

I guess the 2.8 is good if youre on a slightly older camera and dont change your ISO much. If you are happy with higher ISO (thus neglecting the one stop speed advantage) then the IS may allow you two stops lower shutter speed.

If it was me I'd get the 2.8 and put the couple of hundred$$ towards a flash. For indoors and outdoors a flash would be a better option than using either lens wide open. If youre chasing kids a flash will help keep the shutter speed up as will the extra stop of the 2.8. also get a little better out of focus background with a faster aperture.

decisions, decisions

It depends on what you will be using it for.

I have the F4IS and have taken sharp pictures at F4 and 1/15th handheld. The IS on the F4 is amazing (it's a newer version than on the 2.8IS - it's advertised as 4 stops)

If you are expecting lots of subject movement in low light then the 2.8 is probably a better tool for the job. In any other situation, the F4.

The F4 is an unbelievably good lens. Even wide open.

Hello.
I have been in the dilemma that you are in now, after 4 months of research and discussion I bought the F2.8 L IS. Having used the lens in very low light settings [5:00 AM] the results have been EXCELLENT. What helped me make my decision was that I would have the Lens for a long time and when I upgrade from by Canon 30D [Yes they do wear out with use] it will be compatible with my next Canon. Hope this helps.

Luigi.

can ask what the price range is?

Have you considered the sigma 70-200 f2.8? Just another option. I grabbed a Nikon version for $890. Considerably cheaper than the Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR and still cheaper than the 80-200 without AF-S.

From reading all the canon 70-200 have a good reputation, but I think I'd go the f2.8 over IS.

Good luck

MATT

Thanks everyone. I went for the 2.8L in the end. There are a lot of valid points when arguing for one over the other and things were pretty even. In the end I decided that conventional wisdom always suggests it's better to have a faster lens and the main "shortcoming" with the 2.8 is the weight - maybe the missus won't want to use it now!

A friend is picking it up for me so should have it tonight, then I'll take it on holidays. Only downside is they don't have a 77mm UV filter they can send me so have to be careful not to scratch it!

Now, I just have to go and find a duck!!!

Thanks again, Muzz

muzz wrote:Thanks everyone. I went for the 2.8L in the end. There are a lot of valid points when arguing for one over the other and things were pretty even. In the end I decided that conventional wisdom always suggests it's better to have a faster lens and the main "shortcoming" with the 2.8 is the weight - maybe the missus won't want to use it now!

Congratuations, is it really that much of a drawback, esp since your partner wont want to use it?

muzz wrote:A friend is picking it up for me so should have it tonight, then I'll take it on holidays. Only downside is they don't have a 77mm UV filter they can send me so have to be careful not to scratch it!

Use the lens hood. Good luck and remember to post that duck picture at:
http://dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=34593&p=377901&hilit=duck+pix#p377901

Is the IS feature relevant when shooting panning sports shots like race cars?

I could see the f2.8 being handy for low light and portraits over the f4. Just the IS version is heaps more $.

It will be interesting to find out your vews on your new adquisition.

Wink wrote:Is the IS feature relevant when shooting panning sports shots like race cars?

Yes - the F4/IS has two IS modes - one (mode 1) is for regular, handheld use, the other (mode 2) is for panning, where the IS only works in one plane (the up/down) so you can pan horizontally and still get the benefits of IS at lower shutter speeds.

Interesting reading this thread... I've been contemplating the 70-200 f/4L myself... but I keep thinking I should wait until I can save some extra $$$ and shell out for the 2.8. If nothing else it'll benefit in my regular low light condition nightmares (albeit the lenses I own other than the nifty fifty pale in comparison even with the f/4)

Might see if I can hire an f/4 for a weekend to have a play - any suggestions on hire places in Victoria?

dviv wrote:

Wink wrote:Is the IS feature relevant when shooting panning sports shots like race cars?

Yes - the F4/IS has two IS modes - one (mode 1) is for regular, handheld use, the other (mode 2) is for panning, where the IS only works in one plane (the up/down) so you can pan horizontally and still get the benefits of IS at lower shutter speeds.

does IS/VR really extend that handhold capability when panning? I was panning with Marcus (photomarcs - who is loving his 70-200 f/4 - non IS) with my 70-200VR and did not find any difference in the keeper rate with VR on or off. The motion of panning already helps with reducing vertical movment i found....I ended up keeping VR on just in case though

Maybe some of the motorsport pros here can give you something more definitive

Johnmc, a couple of years back when I was trying to make up my mind on what lens to buy someone told me here to wait till I had the money for the lens I really wanted; otherwise I would end up with a lens I did not want and no money. Of couse, I found this truth the hardway for I had ended up with far too many lenses. Some of which cannot be used with my next camera when I eventually get it. I guess what I am telling you is to think ahead; not just in your present needs. But, I still want to hear the final chapter of your story.

Thanks for the advice zafra - a very valid point - I'll be sure to keep you posted

I settled for the Non IS f4L... works a charm!

IS, in my belief is not an essential for everyone, its a nifty feature, but its not for everyone.

Alot of people would argue that, and i'm open for it.

My belief of the effectiveness of IS is a couple of stops if i'm not wrong, but thats great and all, it's a safety feature really. If you can't get a shot handheld at low shutter speeds then IS is your best friend. However, using a lens of this calibre for panning is just the same as the Non IS.

It's all personal choice really. I'd prefer saving my money on IS and save up for a nice ultra wide =D

This whole thing still has me confused...
They say the 2.8 is faster so it's good for low light. But what about if 2.8 just doesn't give you the DOF you need?
Wouldn't the IS be the most important factor between the 2 rather than one aperture stop?

Maybe my understanding is wrong...

Wink wrote:This whole thing still has me confused...
They say the 2.8 is faster so it's good for low light. But what about if 2.8 just doesn't give you the DOF you need?
Wouldn't the IS be the most important factor between the 2 rather than one aperture stop?

Maybe my understanding is wrong...

It depends on how you look at it. But the DOF difference between 2.8 and 4 is minimal. If you stop down then IS will come into play, but if you have to freeze motion in low light, stopping down and using IS will not help you as will not have the shutterspeed to freeze the motion, IS cannot help you here. In the case of panning IS does not really help as the lateral motion already helps to negate any vertical motion.

Hope this helps