Canon 70-200 F4 IS or F2.8 (non IS)?

[Vertvorb]

I'm looking to get a telephoto for sports photography to go with my 5D MK3. I cant decide between these 2, my budget is in this range.

The F4 appeals as its meant to have better image quality and it has IS but its only F4

F2.8 appeals because its faster, but its heavier also

At the moment i am leaning towards the F4 but the F2.8 apeture would be so nice

[Warninglabel]

Personally I have the the 70 - 200 2.8L Non IS and the 70 - 200 2.8L II IS and for great stop action the 2.8s are great, at 2.8 you really don't need IS with a steady hand. If your going to take sport photo's @ night, I would go with the 2.8

[pwp]

Absolutely without question the f/2.8 is your lens. A brighter lens will AF faster which is critical for effective high hit rate sports shooting. Also you'll be able to shoot indoor or sports under lights a whole lot more easily, plus with a f/2.8 lens you have the viable option of adding a x1.4 converter and still have a 280mm f/4.

The f/4 may have marginally better IQ than the f/2.8 in static controlled conditions, but do keep in perspective that the f/2.8 is regarded as one of the finest zooms ever produced, and is the 70-200 zoom of choice for the majority of Canon professionals.

For sports, don't even think about anything other than the f/2.8. Visit the often brilliant site SportsShooter http://www.sportsshooter.com for more insights from seasoned sports shooters.

Paul Wright

[ScottyP]

I read on The Digital Picture that the author there turns off IS while shooting sports.  Seems a little counter-intuitive, and he does not say anything about why.

Would this likely just be because his shutter speed is so high to capture the action that camera shake is irrelevant?  Or might a person do this just to save battery power?  Or could vigorous panning done with the IS on impart some kind of feedback problem between IS and the panning motion?

I ask because the non-IS 2.8 is something I am thinking about for my little girls' soccer.  Although I have to say it is a little comical to describe a Kindergartener's "speed" as being especially "high," even though she thinks she is like greased lightening. 

[nitsujwalker]

I would go with the 2.8 if weight is not an issue.  If you will be shooting sports then a high shutter speed will be required and the IS will not be as big of concern.  And as already mentioned indoors will be much easier to shoot with the 2.8!

[risc32]

Really consider the size/weight of the 2.8, and the filter sizes. That said i went with the nonIS 2.8 years ago, and I have no regrets at all. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28.htm Says you don't have to worry about the nonIS's image quality, and I believe it.

[otsink]

I had a similar dilemma a few years ago. I was shooting primarily sports (Lacrosse outdoors as well as  Volleyball indoors) I went with the 2.8 Non IS due to the higher shutter speeds negating the need for IS. For indoor volleyball the 2.8 is a must have (and for nighttime lacrosse games). I added a 1.4x teleconverter for the extra reach on the large lacrosse field for use during the day. I will say that as my shooting has expanded beyond sports, I have had occasions where the IS would have been nice to have. The weight has never bothered me.

[lexonio]

So really, not a single word in defence of the f/4? It's twice as light and much easier to carry around, and it also has IS - is the f/2.8 non-stabilised THAT much better?

[Tijn]

For sports, action-stopping is usually achieved by pushing the shutter speed up really high - like 1/2000 of a second - and at those shutter speeds, motion blur and camera shake are pretty much non-existent. No IS is needed at those shutter speeds.

A larger aperture will allow for quicker shutter speeds, and also for quick shutter speeds at less light.

The advantages to the 70-200 f/4L IS are its weight and slightly better sharpness compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L.

Personally I was looking for a nice walkaround lens for my current crop camera that would go on to become a nice portrait lens when I switch full-frame. I picked the 70-200 f/4L IS because of IS, weight and sharpness. But as said: if sports are your main shooting interests, the larger aperture version without IS is probably a better choice for the money.

[KreutzerPhotography]

I have the f/4 IS and I love it. I find myself consistantly wanting the low light capibilities of the 2.8. I shoot weddings... Not sports so IS is very valuable to me. I am looking to upgrade to the 2.8 IS but $ is tight right now.

The selection of the 70-200's give you the option to decide what lens is best for YOUR photography style.

The main question is... Do you want IS or DOF

With IS on the f/4 IS I can shoot at 1/15 with little to no problem.

If your subject is not moving then I would recommend f/4 IS...

If your subject will be moving 2.8


Only my opinion

[lexonio]

With 5DMKIII the low-light capabilities of f/4 are increased greatly when compared to the f/2.8 on 5DMKII, not taking bokeh and DoF into account though.

[thepancakeman]

With 5DMKIII the low-light capabilities of f/4 are increased greatly when compared to the f/2.8 on 5DMKII, not taking bokeh and DoF into account though.

With fast moving sports, it seems there is never enough light!  I spend most of my time shooting (sports) at 2.8 simply because I have to do that to get the shutter speed fast enough to capture the action.  The high ISO capability of the 5d3 will definitely help in that department, and there are times where I functionally miss the shots due to the DOF at 2.8 whereas it would have been a keeper at 4.0.  That being said, I can't imagine trying to capture sports at 4.0.

Oh, wait a minute, yes I can.  I have the 24-105 f/4.0 but frequently forget about it because I almost never use it because it simply can't capture the movement like I can with the 2.8 on my 70-200.     And as others have mentioned or at least alluded to, IS is often worthless with sports.  The one time I do us it is in panning shots where I want a nice motion blur on the background, then mode 2 can be handy.

[KreutzerPhotography]

With fast moving sports, it seems there is never enough light! [/quote]

Agreed!

[Gatorsv80]

70-200 f4 IS would be my pick with the 5d3. F4 is extremely sharp wide open. Plus with the ISO boost of the 5d3, I'd say 2.8 is not needed anymore unless you need the smaller DOF. Another reason is the f4 is smaller, lighter, and more portable. (Prior to my 70-200mm f4 IS and 5d classic, I had a d300 with 70-200 2.8 VR. - best switch decision ever!)

[nickbj05]

I highly recommend going with the 2.8 since you are shooting sports. I know the 5D MKIII has great ISO performance, but you would be surprised how quickly you will be increasing the ISO as the light starts to dim. For example, tonight I went out the lake to take some photos of birds and other wild life about 3 hours before sunset. While shooting under the trees, I was at ISO 400 at F/2.8. When I switched lenses and was limited to F/5.6 in the shadier spots, I was at ISO6400 to get a shutter speed of 1/500. Sure, you can shoot at that ISO on the MKIII, but you still have some noise and loss of detail. The IS won't help you at all for shooting sports, but the one stop in aperture could come in handy.

I tried to decide between the same two lenses about two years ago and went with the 2.8 and do not regret my decision.