70-200 ?

[private]

WWYD? If you had the choice between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 2.8 which would you pick and why?

I am leaning towards the f/4 b/c is SHARP and 1/2 the weight of the 2.8 and I will only use it outdoors where I have some room to stand further back from my subject. And the price is about the same...

[takethislife5150]

I personally would go for the 2.8 because I shoot highschool sports, and night football games and indoor sports are TERRIBLE with a f 4-5.6

[LoveDSLR]

Assuming you are using it professionally then the question is how many 70-200 lenses you will like to have?

Buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS if it is one otherwise you may have to get both (not at once). BTW, I have both.

[spencer28n]

How far do you have to stop down the 2.8 to get reasonably sharp for portraits?

[LoveDSLR]

At f/4, it should be close to the 70-200 f/4 L lens. I often use it wide open with my 5D Mk II that allows fine tuning.

I dislike using a sharp and harsh bokeh portrait lens. Otherwise I would have use an 'avoid photographing your mother-in-law' macro lens. My favorite portrait lens is the smooth and soft 85 f/1.2 L II.

[kirbinster]

I guess it depends on what you are planning to shoot and if you are going to shoot handheld or with support. I had a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and replaced it with a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR just to get the vibration reduction. The 80-200 was heavy and I found I would only use it when I took a tripod as it was very hard to hold it steady on a heavy camera like my D300. The 70-200 while heavy has the vibration reduction and I have yet to use it on a tripod. So, I would probably suggest the slightly slower glass with the vibration reduction if you don't plan on using a tripod. If you will use a tripod then get the faster lens.

[private]

I won't be using a tripod b/c I will be running after chasing the kiddos, and doing squats also...

I guess I should test out the bokeh on the f/4, I would love it to be creamy like the 24-70...if its not, maybe I will have to think about the 100mm 2.8 L lens that just came out... But I really am a zoom fan...

Oy, still closer to the f/4...

[Samanax]

Originally Posted by private

WWYD? If you had the choice between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 2.8 which would you pick and why?

I got the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM because it can do f/4.0 but the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS USM can't do f/2.8.

Originally Posted by private

And the price is about the same...

Huh At B&H the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM is $1949.95 while the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS USM is $1234.95...that's a $715 difference.

[Car2n]

Originally Posted by Samanax

Huh At B&H the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM is $1949.95 while the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS USM is $1234.95...that's a $715 difference.

between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 2.8 (non IS)

[LoveDSLR]

It is a joy to use the light and sharp Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. However, it is not a f/2.8 zoom so I often have to use the light Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 DC HSM instead.

The heavier Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is still my choice when every shot count.