# Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS



## Geotropvs (Oct 3, 2008)

Up until now I've been an amateur who enjoys taking pictures as few things in life. 

Nowaday I want to stop the hobby and start a being a serious photographer so I can make a profit out of my hobby. 

So... now I want to start as an event photographer and I'm wondering how the canon 70-200 f4 IS and canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS compare is real life. 

I've read a lot about both of them. Here is what I know: 
- F4 is sharper due to being less complex (for its smaller aperture)
- F4 IS can give 4 stops on non-action situations while F2.8 IS can give 3 stops (that makes them even on non-action situations)
- F4 weights 1.5 lbs which is half the 3.2 lbs of the F2.8 and is smaller
- F4 costs $500 less

I've never tried any of them, so I can't tell if f/4 IS would be good enough for weddings and events in artificial light. Can the F/4 IS handle these kind of situations?

I will be shooting with a Canon 50D and would apreciate opinions from someone who has used both and compare, but most important, someone who has tried the F/4 IS for events who want to share experiences.

I live in Nicaragua. I cannot have a look or try any of these two before I buy. Sad but truth, so any help would be really welcome. 
tnx in advance


----------



## notelliot (Oct 3, 2008)

I love Nicaragua. I lived in Managua, and Somoto for a few months. 

I'd go for the f4, myself. without IS, to save a little more on weight. should be able to boost your ISO, and use a faster shutter to kill any shake. 
to be fair, I shoot nikon. but, the 70-200 f4L on a 5D is hands down, my favorite canon setup.. for weight/feel and IQ.. the f4 is REALLY sharp.


----------



## usayit (Oct 3, 2008)

I've shot with both and prefer the f/4 for the compact / lightweight packaging.  Two completely different lenses with different purposes; only you can make the determination.  The f/4L is very sharp even wide open.  

Keep in mind the f/2.8L is the bread and butter of wedding photographers.... whether their requirements match up to yours is a decision you need to make.


In the end.. you can't go wrong with either.  Personally, my 50 f/1.4 nd 135 f/2L both found more use than either 70-200mm.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 3, 2008)

I think that with new cameras, like the 50D, the F4 version is getting to be a more viable option.  You can gain the shutter speed loss of F4 (vs F2.8) by increasing the ISO.  The 50D looks to be great at 1600, good at 3200 and still usable at 6400.  

That being said, there will still come times when you will wish that you had F2.8.  But after lugging that big heavy lens around all day, you may wish for the lighter F4 version.  

I went with the F2.8 L IS, because then I know that I have the best possible tool and I don't have to second guess my decision (except when paying for it).


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 3, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I think that with new cameras, like the 50D, the F4 version is getting to be a more viable option. You can gain the shutter speed loss of F4 (vs F2.8) by increasing the ISO. The 50D looks to be great at 1600, good at 3200 and still usable at 6400.
> 
> That being said, there will still come times when you will wish that you had F2.8. But after lugging that big heavy lens around all day, you may wish for the lighter F4 version.
> 
> I went with the F2.8 L IS, because then I know that I have the best possible tool and I don't have to second guess my decision (except when paying for it).


 
+1.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Oct 4, 2008)

ive been having a similar deliemma in thinking of a near future purchase...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 4, 2008)

I bought the 2.8 IS and I regret it. It takes great pictures, but it's too big for me. I feel like a putz carrying it around, and it is unwieldy. Make sure you need it.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 4, 2008)

...and if you're willing to run around with a lens that size, get the 100-400mm. MUCH more useful focal length on a full-frame camera (to me).


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Oct 4, 2008)

i have used the F4 IS version (i havent got the chance to use the F2.8) and i found it to be a very comfortable weight for me. amazing lens, still debating between that and the 2.8 but from the comments ive read here from you guys im not sure if it would be worth the weight. i still need to experience the weight of the two-point-eight.


----------



## soylentgreen (Oct 4, 2008)

I have used both but have had the f/2.8L IS for much longer. It weighs like a cinder block but that depth of field and bokeh is buttery good. I live at ISO 100-250 so the larger aperature is desired for IQ sake. With better sensors and IQ at high ISO as with the 50D, 5D MkII, etc. the larger aperature may be sacrificed to attain similar shutterspeeds, but not the DOF it provides. See which you prefer, but both are great lenses.


----------



## Tykell (Oct 7, 2008)

I am having a similar dilemma. My logic is I'll get more out of the 2.8 for indoor events/sports than the 4. Anyone want to comment on that? I would like a telephoto that can be used in both outdoor and indoor sports.


----------



## usayit (Oct 7, 2008)

For indoor events/sports, take the f/2.8 and be aware of the shallow depth of field you will have to deal with.  Also note that 200mm focal length is short for some sporting events.  

People frequently post the f/4L versus f/2.8L (both 70-200 and 24-105/70 flavors) question asking for the "best".  There is no "best" option.  As you can see from the thread, many choose the f/4L and others f/2.8L for different reasons.  

For me... zooms are used for general all around use.  Hence, I carry the f/4 versions.  Once in low light, I find fast primes the better option.


----------



## Tykell (Oct 7, 2008)

I am not in the financial position to be purchasing fast (f/2.0 or faster) telephoto primes. It's still just a hobby! With that rationale in mind, I'm thinking I can deal with the grainier pics I'd get indoors with the 70-200 f2.8, rather than not being able to take good pics at all with the f4.0 indoors.

I am likely going to be covering university ice hockey for my school paper, so a 200mm focal length should be reasonable enough for this. I might look into a 135mm f/2.0 prime depending on my vantage point at the games, but I think the 70-200 will be my go-to lens for these events.


----------



## McQueen278 (Oct 7, 2008)

If you will be shooting mostly outdoor I'd say go with the f/4, but if you will be going indoor even 25% of the time, it's pretty worth it to have the f/2.8.  IS is cool and all, but there is no substitute for a faster aperture.  Also, the f/2.8 affords a much smaller depth of field for portraits.  I have the f/2.8 IS and don't regret it for a second.  I also don't mind the weigh.  It is much heavier than it's slower stablemate, but I haven't had any problems carrying it attached to a 40D on my shoulder most of the day during a wedding while also toting a 5D and a stroboframe, lens, flash, etc.


----------

