f4 vs f2.8

[Tashique Alam]

i am confused between buying the Canon EF 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS). on moment i think the 2.8 is sufficient to exclude the need for IS, all i need is a sturdy hand. next i think the its much heavier and f4 is lighter without IS, plus i can use slower shutter speeds for low light. which do i choose? how many of you faced this dilemma and which did you ultimately choose?

[Hill Country Hack]

I am currently using a Canon f5.6 non IS 70-300mm lens. I feel I have a steady hand, but if I am all the way out to 300mm I need a shutter speed of at LEAST 1/100 to not have camera shake. I don't shoot out to the full focal length much due to the fact this lens gets soft out that far. Needless to say, I use it with a tripod or a monopod if I'm out to 200mm or further unless I can get the shutter speed up to 1/300 or greater.

[Murtasma]

What do you think you'll use the lens for most?

[arlon]

If you need shallow DOF for portraits or shutter speed for indoor sports I'd want the 2.8.

If I where shooting mostly scenery/snap shots outdoors, hiking miles in parks, shooting from a moving car, I'd have the slower and lighter IS model.

Very different lenses but the real difference is what one will do shot wide open vs the other. If you always shoot at F8 in Aperture priority, the 2.8 lens buys you nothing. If you are always shooting your current lens wide open and wishing for more light or creamier backgrounds, the 2.8.. etc...


IS will gain you probably 3-4 stops over a NON IS lens but it's only useful on static objects. You can get successful shots at lower shutter speeds but only if your subject is perfectly still. My subjects are seldom still and I would prefer the added artisitc ability the wider aperture provides. Maximum aperture may be different between these lenses and something to consider if MAXIMUM DOF is a big issue..

[SwissJon]

I have a 2.8 70-200... I love it.
I also have a 70-300 5.6-6.3 VR. I love that too.. I use the 2.8 wide open almost all the time. I use the 70-300 as a carry about lens..
I use them both in equal amounts, and you can guarantee, when I have only one with me, I'll want the other.
I wouldn buy a 70-200 f4, it's the worst of both lenses, you lose the speed of the 2.8 and the reach of the 70-300

This shouldn't be an either or question, it should be a Which First question.. I'd go for the 2.8....

[Jim Bryant]

70-200mm f2.8........for the price you can't beat the extra stop and sharpness.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

70-200mm f2.8........for the price you can't beat the extra stop and sharpness.

According to almost all reviews I've read, the f/4 version is sharper than the f/2.8.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

According to almost all reviews I've read, the f/4 version is sharper than the f/2.8.

Ditto. The main reason the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM got upgraded to the Mark II was to bring it up to the f/4 IS's level of optical performance.

[3bayjunkie]

if you are going to be shooting nighttime sports i would go with the 2.8

[metallion58]

Sorry, my printer doesn't take pictures !