August 28, 2014, 03:16:33 AM

Author Topic: 70-200mm F4 IS vs 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS (70-200mm F2.8 IS ver. 1?!)  (Read 986 times)


  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Hi guys,
Currently, I only have a 50mm 1.4 and 24-105mm L on a 60D, and its all fine for my shooting, but when I help others photograph events, I found it a bit short.
Usually, I'll photography assemblies/stage presentations for people, and the 70-200 would come into great use.
So, I have around $850-$1000 USD to spend on a 2nd hand 70-200mm... It'll take me sometime to save up to around this range, but, I wanna have a goal ahaha. :)

So, here's the question, should I spend $900 on a used 70-200mm F4 IS... OR around the same price for a used 2.8 non-IS? Or... Spend an extra $170 or so on a used2.8 IS ver.1?

Usually, I'd be shooting at ISO 800, F4 and at 1/50th of a second on my 24-105, which i know, is way too slow of a shutter speed to shoot a 70-200.

Also, in terms of sharpness, would they all be similar to each other, and perhaps on par with my 24-105mm?
I also want a good amount of shallow DOF, well, having the option wont hurt would it? But is F4 on a crop going to provide enough shallow DOF? F4 vs 2.8, is the DOF really noticeable to the average person, a mere person who knows nothing about photography?

IS better suited for my situation or 2.8s the way to go? I prefer not to spend that much as I don't get paid often, so 70-200mm 2.8 IS ver.1 isnt my preferred route...
DSLR: 60D, 24-105 F4L, 50mm 1.4, 580 Ex II
Compacts: X100, ZX-1

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
    • View Profile
Re: 70-200mm F4 IS vs 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS (70-200mm F2.8 IS ver. 1?!)
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2013, 12:28:18 PM »
The 70-200mm f/4 IS is sharper than the other two, the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS is very good, and bringing up the rear is the f/2.8 Ver 1 IS model.
All of them are reasonably good, so its just a matter of what you need.  I've owned multiple copies of all the f/2.8 versions and kept the f/4L IS.  If I were to buy the f/2.8 version it would be the non-IS or the MK II.