70-200 2.8 non-IS vs. Primes?

[Cory]

Would one lose nothing by swapping out their 85 1.8 and 200 2.8 with a 70-200 2.8 non-IS?
I generally stay at 2.8 or above anyway, shoot a lot of outdoor sports and a lot of indoor stage performances (with high ISO on a Canon 70D).

:-*

 

[Sporgon]

You'd lose nothing but gain a lot of weight

 

[Luds34]

You'd lose nothing but gain a lot of weight

Especially against that 85! When I shot crop I found myself reaching for the 85 over my 70-200 a lot more as the FF equiv reach of 135mm was really a sweet spot for me shooting sports, or kids running around outside, etc.

With that said, the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS (a lens I currently own) is a fine lens. I'd say if you planned to shoot a lot of landscape I might recommend the f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II siblings as even stopped down I believe they are better in the corners. However for sports or any shot with subject isolation the corners are no longer a factor and the non IS f/2.8 is a very solid lens.

I will say the few times I've found IS wanting a bit is shooting indoor kids plays, concerts and such. I get a lot of ISO 6400 shots (on a 6D) and IS probably would have saved me a stop (or two) on the shutter and brought ISO to a more reasonable level.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had two copies of this lens, its a very good one, but I kept on using my 85 and 135. I also had the IS version 1, but it could not replace them. But, when I bought the IS Version II of the lens, my 85 and 135 sat unused and I finally sold them. I kept my 100L macro for macro's.

A zoom is always a compromise, so its simply a matter of the loss of IQ versus the ability to zoom to frame the image without stopping to change lenses. For live shooting of events, thats important.

 

[the.unkle.george]

The variation of focal lengths makes for more interesting images.

I shot some indoor karting with a 85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II.
Even stopped down, the spherical and chromatic aberration of the f/1.8 were quite noticeable over the zoom. Image quality is about more than just sharpness. I was getting some IQ loss from motion blur / high ISO anyway.

See if you can guess which lens is which in this completely unfair comparison:

 

[Cory]

If you like, here's a JPEG out of the camera with my 85 1.8 (from a few years ago with my T1i) and some super minor LR processing -
But the zoom does look pretty great.
Thanks.

 

[jeffa4444]

Primes verses zooms is always a dilemma with primes easier to use and often sharper but the zooms provide versatility so it very much depends on the shooting circumstances.

 

[Duckman]

Would one lose nothing by swapping out their 85 1.8 and 200 2.8 with a 70-200 2.8 non-IS?
I generally stay at 2.8 or above anyway, shoot a lot of outdoor sports and a lot of indoor stage performances (with high ISO on a Canon 70D).

:-*

If you usually shoot at 2.8 anyway, I definitely think the framing versatility of the zoom would be best for your use.
It will likely be slightly heavier, and maybe take a hit in resolution/bokeh, but, you'll probably have to look for it to notice. That said. Get version ii if possible for best image quality.
-J

 

[the.unkle.george]

Maybe consider the 55-250mm STM. It's ~$150, and stopped down a little has the same IQ as the 70-200mm f4. Yeah it's STM, but the elements are small (EF-S vs EF, 5.6 vs f4/f2.8), so they move as fast and quieter than a FF USM lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=404&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

 

[pwp]

If you're shooting a lot of stage performances, this does often necessitate a fixed or limited shooting position. I shoot a lot of stage, and wouldn't be without my zooms. I run with a 70-200 f/2.8isII on a 5D MkIV and a 24-70 f/2.8II on a 1DX. The flexibility a zoom gives to recompose from wide to a tight shot of a principal or point of interest isn't something I'd be keen to give away. I trust both these lenses at f/2.8.

If it came to a toss-up between the brightness benefits of a 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2 vs the flexibility of the zooms, I'd go with the f/2.8 zooms every time. Even if that means cranking the iso way up which the 5DIV and 1DX handle surprisingly well. At a recent job I ran both bodies at 12,800 iso as I needed to freeze high energy action and dance moves, something that needed shutter speeds above 1/500th and preferably 1/1000th. It was as fast moving as basketball. Shoot RAW then a touch of NR in post and you'll have happy clients.

OP you're in a slightly more difficult position shooting with a crop sensor body. I also have a 7DII which would deliver very similar output to your 70D, and I'm generally reluctant to push that past 3200 iso, or 6400 iso at a pinch depending on the requirements of the project.

-pw

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you're shooting a lot of stage performances, this does often necessitate a fixed or limited shooting position. I shoot a lot of stage, and wouldn't be without my zooms. I run with a 70-200 f/2.8isII on a 5D MkIV and a 24-70 f/2.8II on a 1DX. The flexibility a zoom gives to recompose from wide to a tight shot of a principal or point of interest isn't something I'd be keen to give away. I trust both these lenses at f/2.8.

If it came to a toss-up between the brightness benefits of a 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2 vs the flexibility of the zooms, I'd go with the f/2.8 zooms every time. Even if that means cranking the iso way up which the 5DIV and 1DX handle surprisingly well. At a recent job I ran both bodies at 12,800 iso as I needed to freeze high energy action and dance moves, something that needed shutter speeds above 1/500th and preferably 1/1000th. It was as fast moving as basketball. Shoot RAW then a touch of NR in post and you'll have happy clients.

OP you're in a slightly more difficult position shooting with a crop sensor body. I also have a 7DII which would deliver very similar output to your 70D, and I'm generally reluctant to push that past 3200 iso, or 6400 iso at a pinch depending on the requirements of the project.

-pw

I have the opposite experience, because I get into the final rehearsals, and can move anywhere in the theater, even up onstage. Then, after the rehearsal, I take more photos with the actors in their favorite poses as well as silly ones.

However, for the few where I must take photos during a live performance, its a quandry. A large zoom definitely is not the right thing to use if I'm out in the audience. I used to compromise on my 135L and selected a seat the right distance back to be able to capture a full height person. This made for lots of cropping, but the lens resolution was good enough to handle a severe crop. I have shot live performances from a area reserved for me, and then changed primes as needed, but not since I go my zooms. Now, I change from the 24-70 to 70-200, but mostly stick with the 70-200 unless I need a large area of the stage in a shot.

Dance moves are really tough, because of the low light and high shutter speed. I usually stick to 1/320 and accept minor blurring.