70-200 F/4

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

If I were to buy a 70-200, either the F/4 IS or the 2.8. I don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II. What would be the better purchase? The IS is better because of IS, but 2.8 is good because of the 2.8 aperture.

What do you think?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

[neuroanatomist]

What do you plan to shoot?  Portraits or sports, get the f/2.8. General use, get the f/4 IS.

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

I shoot portraits, but I also shoot just general subjects.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

[neuroanatomist]

You've got the 24-105/4, how happy are you with the DoF at 105mm f/4?  If so, the f/4 IS would be a good choice, it's also smaller and lighter.

[gmrza]

Hello,

I shoot portraits, but I also shoot just general subjects.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

I would see the following best fit for different uses:

• Portraits: f/2.8 - IS II if you can afford it, and need lower shutter speeds
• Sports: f/2.8
• Events: f/2.8 IS II - e.g. weddings
• Travel: f/4 IS - unless you have a specific requirement for f/2.8
• General use/walkabout: f/4 IS

Keeping in mind that DoF gets thinner as focal length increases, you can still use the f/4 to shoot portraits - an example below, albeit shot with the 7D, not on full frame.  Admittedly, the borders on the f/4 are a little soft at f/4, but for a portrait that doesn't really matter, as the fringes of the frame are normally out of focus.

Unless I specifically know I will need to shoot at a larger aperture than f/4, I usually grab the f/4 IS.

[Promature]

I picked up the 70-200 f4 for about $450 from Canon Refurb when they had 20% off.  With that said, I live in sunny Florida and I use the lens exclusively outside, so fast shutter speeds are very common.  I love this lens and seem to get a good DoF with f4.  Could it be better if I had the 2.8?  Sure, but my wallet just didn't want to cooperate with me.

And not to throw a wrench into the mix, but you might want to consider the 135 f2 or 200 f2.8 primes.  They are both cheaper than either the f4 is or f2.8.  If you just need the reach without the need for zoom, then just get the prime and you'll have better, faster glass for less money.

[Zlatko]

I shoot portraits, but I also shoot just general subjects.

The f/4 IS is much more practical for me.  Great lens!  Smaller, lighter and cheaper, and it has IS.  With improved high ISO performance on newer cameras, the f/2.8 version is less of a necessity than it used to be.  I would not buy the f/2.8 version without IS.