# Canon 70-200 F4 IS or F2.8 - Need advice



## emesjay (Jul 30, 2011)

Hey guys, needing some advice.

Planning on doing some sports/motorsports(mostly) photography. Was initially heading towards buying the F2.8 NON-IS, although doubting it now as i am afraid i will need the IS, as it quiet a substantial weight at 1.3KG. Especially since it will be mounted on a 550D, i am certain it will be front heavy(most likely will purchase battery grip to compensate weight). But then again, since i will be shooting outside, will it make such a big difference as this lens is wide-open? I would prefer shooting hand-held, although might end up getting a mono pod(not sure yet), so should i be worried?

I am aiming towards freezing motion within my shots and also to do some panning ones as well.

Anyway, that's about it i guess. Help me out


----------



## emesjay (Jul 31, 2011)

Anyone? Any information will be appreciated


----------



## oldmacman (Jul 31, 2011)

Financially, I have a hard time spending the extra $$ on the 2.8 and IS. It's one more stop of light that can be generally compensated for with shutter and ISO. It's true that it would be nice to have, but for what I use my f4 version for (sports and outdoor) I have never missed 2.8. If I do use it inside, it has been with studio lights. On the short end, 70mm is pretty long for indoor shooting. I have never used the 70-200 for panning. The few times I have tried with other lenses, I found out how tricky it is.


----------



## Quentin_Moyer (Jul 31, 2011)

That being said, if you do get a monopod (which you will probably want with that heavy glass), IS will be irrelevant, as it won't do anything to freeze motion. My vote would be for the non-IS f/2.8. Then again, the 70-200mm f/4L has been called Canon's sharpest telephoto zoom, but you could always stop the 2.8 down.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Jul 31, 2011)

I use the non-IS 2.8 version for my sports stuff (everything from football and rugby to motorsports and swimming) and I can say there is a big difference in feel between the IS 2.8 (which i've used in the past) and mine. The f/4 IS is around 2/3's the weight of the non-IS 2.8, but I handhold all the time and you do just get used to it. Using it on a monopod will balance it nicely if you need to, which will eliminate the need for IS. That extra stop on the 2.8 can make all the difference in lower light or night events, and whilst you _can_ offset this with the f/4 by bumping up the ISO or reducing the shutter speed ideally you want as low an ISO and has high a shutter speed as possible for freezing action whilst preserving IQ. For the extra few $$'s i'd go for the non-IS 2.8


----------

