# 70-200 f/4 or 2.8?



## robbo989 (Oct 10, 2010)

I'm looking into getting a new lens, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/2.8  non-IS? They are virtually the same price. Or should I buy the 70-200  f/4 non-IS and have a few bucks left over for more toys? I want to do mainly sports shooting, mostly outdoor biking and skiing. But I wouldn't mind something to do a bit of indoor hockey shooting.

Thanks


----------



## oldmacman (Oct 10, 2010)

I have the f4 and I am always craving a shallower DOF to simplify my shots. Especially in sports, it's nice to blur the crowd or an unattractive background to bring focus on your subject.


----------



## Overread (Oct 10, 2010)

The other bonus of having a wider max aperture of f2.8 is that it means when you go inside into poorer lighting you can use that wider aperture to shoot with a faster shutter speed. This helps to stop blur from your subjects moving - IS remember will only counter motion from your holding of the lens and will do nothing to counter the subject itself moving. 

So most times with sports you should have a shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion so handshake won't be a major problem. Further should it prove to be so you can always use a monopod to greatly stabilize your setup without having the weight and bulk of a full  tripod.

The only other thing IS will do is give you a smoother viewfinder image when composing a shot.


----------



## robbo989 (Oct 10, 2010)

Thanks a lot for the answers guys, my only concern with the 2.8 is the weight. (kind of have a bunged up shoulder for the next few months) Is it too heavy to carry around all day without a tripod?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 10, 2010)

I don't find it to be too heavy.  Now my 400 f2.8 I use on a monopod.  The 70-200 is usually on a second body when shooting field sports so I carry it for long periods.  If the shoulder in an issue then a good monopod is cheap and always good to have around.


----------



## akeigher (Oct 10, 2010)

robbo989 said:


> Thanks a lot for the answers guys, my only concern with the 2.8 is the weight. (kind of have a bunged up shoulder for the next few months) Is it too heavy to carry around all day without a tripod?


I handhold the 2.8 IS all the time and am fine with it.  It does get a little heavy if I shoot nonstop for a long time - but you would be fine with it.

I say go for the 2.8 - you will like being able to open up the lens.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 10, 2010)

robbo989 said:


> Thanks a lot for the answers guys, my only concern with the 2.8 is the weight. (kind of have a bunged up shoulder for the next few months) Is it too heavy to carry around all day without a tripod?


 
I have walked around with my 7D/70-200 2.8 mk II for a half day or so, and it does get quite heavy. I am not a small guy either.

It can be done for a lot of people, but its far from comfortable/enjoyable. That is unless you are looking for a workout lol.

- Neil


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 10, 2010)

robbo989 said:


> I'm looking into getting a new lens, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/2.8  non-IS? They are virtually the same price. Or should I buy the 70-200  f/4 non-IS and have a few bucks left over for more toys? I want to do mainly sports shooting, mostly outdoor biking and skiing. But I wouldn't mind something to do a bit of indoor hockey shooting.
> 
> Thanks


The 2.8 has the advantage of one stop of light extra, but that's it. Its years old and doesnt have weathing sealing, no rounded aperture blades. Its heavy.

The F/4 IS version is a really nice camera, one of the sharpest lens canon makes. The IS is also excellent. This version does have weather sealing (to be used with a weather sealed body), has rounded aperture blades (better/softer blur). MUCH lighter (by half?). Easily hand-holdable.

F/4 non-IS is really cheap, the cheapest "L" lens available by canon. Its years old (no weather sealing, no IS). Its still pretty sharp, but not like the IS version.

It is really up to you. The 2.8 IS version is the most popular, but pretty darn expensive. I think the F/4 IS is the second most popular version.

I personally have the F/2.8 non-IS and I do have some really sharp images (granted, I was using F/4 and F/5.6) as it was a bright day at soccer game. If I could, I would own both lenses, simply for the sharpness and lack of weight.

The F/4 IS is simply an amazing lens. You can't go wrong with it.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 10, 2010)

robbo989 said:


> Thanks a lot for the answers guys, my only concern with the 2.8 is the weight. (kind of have a bunged up shoulder for the next few months) Is it too heavy to carry around all day without a tripod?



Go to a local camera store and hold the 2.8 version on a body.  It is indeed heavy for a camera lens. It is not heavy if you think of it as a normal object. Ever been bowling? Up to 16 pound bowling balls. 6 pounds is the lightest and the 2.8 is about 3 pounds.  You really get used to it.  Also for prolonged use a monopod is really nice. I bought myself a nice manfrotto monopod for around $50 new and its REALLY nice for my sports photography.  BTW Im 21 years old, a skinny guy and not the most muscular guy.


----------



## ironsidephoto (Oct 16, 2010)

Simple: if you have the money, get the 2.8. You won't be disappointed. If you don't, get the 4. You _may_ be disappointed.


----------



## ironsidephoto (Oct 16, 2010)

(From a Nikon perspective...don't know about Canon)


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 17, 2010)

The 2.8 non-is and is mk i quality is MUCH worse the the f4 is.. And the 2.8 is a lot heavier/bigger.


----------



## Overread (Oct 17, 2010)

Inst!nct said:


> The 2.8 non-is and is mk i quality is MUCH worse the the f4 is.. And the 2.8 is a lot heavier/bigger.



I would not use the word much at all - the f4 IS does have a superior level of image quality when used wide open at f4 - but what we have to understand here is that its a hair splitting  contest between pro lenses. That means that whilst the 70-200mm f4 is that bit sharper the 70-200mm f2.8 is still capable of giving a very good quality shot at f2.8 and f4. Yes there are other sharper options ( a 135mm f2 L would beat both at sharpness at the 135mm range) its not as cut and dry as one being vastly superior over the other.

Also why are we resurrecting a several month old discussion


----------



## wgp1987 (Oct 17, 2010)

Depends if you do video to me. If you want to video with a telephoto and wont be using a tripod that IS is great. I don't know about size but i think if the IS motor is so large it would be similar in size as a f2.8. If i had the cash i would get the 2.8. I bought the f4 non IS and love it. When i want shallow DOF I shoot with my 50mm f1.4 sigma other wise I'm usually shooting f10+..... For the money the 200mm f2.8 L prime is sweet for low $$.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 17, 2010)

Overread said:


> Also why are we resurrecting a several month old discussion



7 days ago?! And I looked at a lens comparing chart

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Id say for paying more money for a worse lens, it is MUCH worse


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 17, 2010)

The f/2.8 non-IS is a 15 year old design which shows in that comparison. But compared to the only-10-year-old 2.8 IS (here) and brand new 2.8 IS II (here) the difference is not that much (if any).

That being said, to the OP, I would say save up your cash as much you can and get the 2.8 IS II. It's regarded as one of the best zoom lenses available today.


----------



## haring (Oct 18, 2010)

Get the 2.8. or buy the canon 135mm 2.0.


----------

