Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) vs Canon 70-200 f4L IS

[killswitch]

Currently using the Canon 60D, and maybe down the road (maybe a year or two) will go for a full frame body. I am sure many of you faced the same dilemma. While I'd love the f2.8L IS I or II of this lens, the budget is keeping me from going for it. :'(

Was scouring the flickr pages, forums for photos taken with the f2.8L (non-IS) and f4L IS. Since I have no experience with this lens (considering its weight and size) I was wondering how difficult it is to keep the f2.8L (non-IS) steady while framing your shot. I am asking this because a friend of mine bought the f2.8L (non-IS) but returned it because it was difficult (at least for him) to get a good shot and freeze his subject (unless with high shutter speed). I know this various from person to person, as some of us may have steady hands than others. Any experiences shared here would be really helpful.

Also, I was wondering given the f4L lens with it's biggest aperture of f4; how is it's bokey quality in comparison to the bokeh rendered by the f2.8L at f2.8.

I am guessing the f4L IS is sharper. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

 

[AdamJ]

I don't have the steadiest of hands either and for this reason, I decided against the f/2.8 non-IS. Though not listed in my signature, I still have my f/4 IS and I value it because it is just as sharp as my f/2.8 IS II, and also lighter and more compact.

If you want f/2.8, consider the Sigma f/2.8 OS. It might not be quite as sharp at the pixel level than the Canon but I think you would get more keepers with that lens when used hand-held, compared with the Canon non-IS.

 

[Menace]

Try renting both and give them a thorough going over - shooting as many situations as you are likely to come across

Have fun

 

[kaihp]

If you are mainly taking sports pictures, then the IS won't matter that much.
I'd go for the f/4L IS.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I came across the same dilemma and I went for the f4 is because I need the stabilization on such a long lens. I assume you are using this handheld otherwise if you needed the extra stop it would not matter. Also from my research the f4 is is sharper and less ca and vingetting. I am currently looking at the 2.8 is ii even though my budget will not allow because I would like the extra stop handheld for low light. The f4 is is also very light.

 

[marekjoz]

I have f4 IS and I've seen photos made with 2.8 non IS. As someone mention above - IS is almost useless when shooting sports because of the relative high shutter speed anyway. If you intend to shoot not fast moving objects, then IS may help you because you can allow having lower shutter speed. It helps looking through the viewfinder while framing, because you can easily hold it in your hands and observing what's going on with your subjects. 2.8 on the other hand might be difficult to handhold for longer time and the best results you would achieve having a monopod or tripod.
When I compare my sport photos made with f4 is it seems that bokeh is not that great and I prefer the one from 2.8 non is.

 

[paul13walnut5]

The extra stop of aperture will really get the most out of your cameras AF (no matter your shooting aperture), if you are using AiServo then this alone is reason to go for the f2.8 non IS.

Handily the f2.8 non-IS comes with a tripod ring, which is also entirely compatable with a monopod.
Which is what I use a lot of the time (less to carry, smaller footprint, much quicker to set up, really assists tracking pans)

The IS f4 is however weathersealed. If this is important to you then that would maybe change things.

Either way, with the heavier bodies and heavy lenses a monopod is for me a no brainer. But then I'm used to lugging vinten visions with my ENG camera.

 

[bow26]

Well, it all boils down to what you're shooting. The IS on the 70-200 f4L will definitely help for you to handhold your camera at a longer shutter speed. But in some situations, you will need the extra f-stop with the f/2.8 as it will give you more bokeh and let you use a higher shutter speed. Mind you, the IS won't help in freezing motion, so it just depends on your situation.

 

[Hodag]

Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) vs Canon 70-200 f4L Non-IS

Excuse me but the IS isn't almost useless for sports it IS useless. If you have IS, turn it off. The IS takes longer to react and focus. It jumps and shifts. Not opinion, just fact.


IS Shift Example

This is what happens as you focus with the IS. Extreme example of the IS jumping at the exact instant that the shutter released. And it does slow down auto-focus.

Opinion: I had the f/2.8 IS USM version and sold it, now carry the f/4 non-IS version (bought used, for sports) Just as clear and sharp. Used the spare money for a 100-400 and a 400mm f/5.6 Cute little lens, just as good image quality. Consider all of the rest about f-stop and features.

Here's a breakdown that I didn't understand at first. f/2.8 comes with a tripod ring, included and a nice white Canon case. F/4 comes with the grey felt pull string bag and no tripod ring. Cost savings are noticeable.

IS models are weather protected, Non-IS aren't. You pay about $1000 more for the IS.

You don't need a tripod ring and can easily hand hold the f/4, but the f/2.8 you may want some support or what I like is a monopod.

 

[marekjoz]

Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) vs Canon 70-200 f4L Non-IS

Excuse me but the IS isn't almost useless for sports it IS useless. If you have IS, turn it off. The IS takes longer to react and focus. It jumps and shifts. Not opinion, just fact.



This is what happens as you focus with the IS. Extreme example of the IS jumping at the exact instant that the shutter released. And it does slow down auto-focus.

Opinion: I had the f/2.8 IS USM version and sold it, now carry the f/4 non-IS version (bought used, for sports) Just as clear and sharp. Used the spare money for a 100-400 and a 400mm f/5.6 Cute little lens, just as good image quality. Consider all of the rest about f-stop and features.

Here's a breakdown that I didn't understand at first. f/2.8 comes with a tripod ring, included and a nice white Canon case. F/4 comes with the grey felt pull string bag and no tripod ring. Cost savings are noticeable.

IS models are weather protected, Non-IS aren't. You pay about $1000 more for the IS.

You don't need a tripod ring and can easily hand hold the f/4, but the f/2.8 you may want some support or what I like is a monopod.

The example you have showed is an extreme one I have never occured such an issue, especially when lens had IS mode 2 working while panning.
I don't agree, that IS should be turned off. It is much easier to find a spot for AF in a viewfinder when you have IS on. The other thing is, that not all sports require panning and such high shutter speeds as in your example.

 

[DB]

I had an excellent copy of the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM from new, but sold it after a year despite taking great sharp pictures. It was incredibly noisy (clicking sound not IQ), slower to AF and it drains your batteries very rapidly (3x faster than non-IS lenses). However, I could have lived with those drawbacks if it wan't for the small aperture - f2.8 is twice as big an aperture as f4. I use my DSLR for video as well as photos, but for the former; you're largely using tripods anyway so IS is not required.

As a rule of thumb, I would never purchase any lens with an aperture smaller than f2.8.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I just recently brought my f4 is back for the 2.8 is ii because I need the extra stop and I should not have to worry about upgrading for a while in that range. Just my op.