Opinions please: Canon 70 - 200 f/4 IS vs. 70 - 200 F2.8 non IS

[HarryWintergreen]

IS is simply a must. The difference in terms of the keeper rate is considerable.

Or look at it this way.  He wants it for sports mainly.

Well, in bright lighting sports, the f/2.8 would let you use a faster shutter, and gaining one stop of aperature (f/2.8 vs. f/4) lets you advance one stop in shutter speed (double speed), making up for one stop of image stabilization.  Does the f/4 IS really give you much more than 1 stop of IS?  And if it is really bright, then forget about IS completely.  At a very fast shutter speed (like bright daylight fast sports), Image Stabilization doesn't really do any good.  So in some situations at medium speed, the two may cancel each other out, and in others at high speed the IS is useless.

And in low lighting, like in a basketball gym, the f/4 may not be usable at all (unless you have an uber-expensive camera that is great at uber-uber-high ISO), whereas the f/2.8 is twice as bright as f/4.  And since you would want to use a monopod for that anyway, the monopod will be your image stabilization.

I know both lenses and I used to shoot track & fields in film days. To me IS is clearly valuable even in bright light. But I see that there may be indivdual differences in what situationens one shoots and how one does is.

[paul13walnut5]

I bought the f2.8 non-IS.

I cannot directly compare it to the f4 IS because I have no direct experience.

My reasoning for buying the f2.8 version was:

I do a lot of video - the extra aperture is invaluable (video has a fixed shutter speed essentially, more aperture flexibility = good)

For when I do stills the extra light is really useful for my AF, I cannot compare like for like here, but my 7D is very very fast and accurate with the f2.8 lens.

In the detailed reviews I read the f4 IS was marginally sharper, a minimal amount sharper, both were excellent, very very good,the f4IS was the sharpest of the bunch (this is in the pre f2.8 IS II days) but the f2.8 was in and of itself an excellent lens.

For the stills stuff that I do the extra shutter speed is more useful to me than IS (I always use a monopod or tripod anyway, I respect that most people do not)

I wish my lens had weather sealing, I have no complaints at all about optical performance or speed.

[Halfrack]

Sports - what size of field???  You can toss a 1.4x mkIII on a 2.8 and get a 4 with greater range.  While it doesn't matter when you're close to the action, but if you're on a football field, your need for reach will become a factor.

[bdunbar79]

Sports - what size of field???  You can toss a 1.4x mkIII on a 2.8 and get a 4 with greater range.  While it doesn't matter when you're close to the action, but if you're on a football field, your need for reach will become a factor.

You can comfortably use a 70-200L lens in indoor sports, especially basketball and volleyball.  For outdoor sports I only use it as a backup lens, with the 300 f/2.8L and the 400 f/2.8L as my go to lenses.  For close action shots the 70-200L is useful on the 1.3x factor on the 1D4.

[Halfrack]

You can comfortably use a 70-200L lens in indoor sports, especially basketball and volleyball.  For outdoor sports I only use it as a backup lens, with the 300 f/2.8L and the 400 f/2.8L as my go to lenses.  For close action shots the 70-200L is useful on the 1.3x factor on the 1D4.

Yep, my point is that the OP doesn't say which 'sports' will be shot.  Then again, no mention of the body, so a 1.6x (7d) or a 1.3x (1d) crop may be there, or it may not be there.  My point was that you can put a 1.4x or 2x tele on the 2.8 with any body, where as you'd need a 1d series to autofocus the 2x on a F4 lens.  I should have said it as 'reach' instead of 'range'. 

[bdunbar79]

You can comfortably use a 70-200L lens in indoor sports, especially basketball and volleyball.  For outdoor sports I only use it as a backup lens, with the 300 f/2.8L and the 400 f/2.8L as my go to lenses.  For close action shots the 70-200L is useful on the 1.3x factor on the 1D4.

Yep, my point is that the OP doesn't say which 'sports' will be shot.  Then again, no mention of the body, so a 1.6x (7d) or a 1.3x (1d) crop may be there, or it may not be there.  My point was that you can put a 1.4x or 2x tele on the 2.8 with any body, where as you'd need a 1d series to autofocus the 2x on a F4 lens.  I should have said it as 'reach' instead of 'range'.

Good point.  What camera does the OP have?

[getalife]

Unlike other Canon lenses, both the f/2.8 and f/4 produce the same sharpness at f/4.  So f/2.8 *only* gives one stop of aperture faster. The thing is it means a DOF even narrower, and double the amount of light (correct me if I am wrong).  I had a hard time choosing between the two, but I decided to go for the f/4 version at its cost and probability. 

[heptagon]

portablility?

[BobSanderson]

Which would people choose - larger aperture or image stabilization?

Depends on what you're shooting.  The benefit of IS is that it allows handholding with less light, and it does so by allowing a longer shutter speed.  That's great if your subject(s) are still, but not as useful if your subjects are moving where you need the higher shutter speed to stop action.  For general use, the f/4 IS is probably a better lens - sharper, smaller, lighter, weather sealed, etc.  For fast-moving sports, especially indoors, f/2.8 would be better than f/4.  Obviously, the f/2.8 IS II gives you the best of both worlds - IS and the extra stop to freeze action...but there's a penalty in terms of weight and cost.

This is right on. I would only caution that this is probably not the last lens you will buy and the Canons keep their value fairly well so it is OK to buy and enjoy and then sell. If you can try these lenses it would be best you can see what well informed folks like neuro are talking about. In the end it is really about the type of photography you anticipate to be doing.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Dear all,

Just looking for an opinion. I want to get my first L lens and I'm tossing between Canon 70 - 200 f/4 IS vs. 70 - 200 F2.8 non IS. I'm looking to use it for sports photography, mainly outdoors but sometime indoors. I've heard lost of pros for both but I haven't read a review that has given me an opinion between these two lenses. I'm leaning towards the f/4 IS but would the 2.8 compensate for hot having IS?

Has anyone used or have both? Which would people choose - larger aperture or image stabilization?
Any thoughts?

(Thanks in advance!)

for sports as the primary goal = the 2.8 non-IS all the way, you want the extra stop of speed and less DOF to help isolate background just a little more

for a general walk-around/travel/landscape/etc. lens the f/4 IS all the way (smaller, lighter, has IS, a bit sharper (the 2.8 non-IS is plenty good though))

i had the 2.8 non-IS when I did lots of sports, once I stopped doing indoor sports i switched


what body, what sports, what scenarios though?