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

[Cali_PH]

I just bought the f/4 version, very glad there was a lighter, cheaper option to the f/2.8. My needs are a bit different than most it seems, since my main focus is landscape, and most of my shooting is with a 10-22 EF-S or 24-105L. I'm sure I'd love the 2.8 version on occasion, but I know most of the time I'd be leaving it out of my pack, especially on longer hikes.

 

[echojs]

I can agree with the 2.8 for sports but I'd like to interject the same question here if I may regarding wedding photography. I have a great copy of the f4L non-IS but I need to upgrade. The 2.8 IS mkii is way out of budget at the moment. My options are these two as well. The sharpness of the f4 seems to be quite a bit better according to digital picture's testing, but that's all I have to go on. I do plan on getting the 100mm 2.8L IS macro as well. On the other hand, I wouldn't be using the new lens only for weddings... it would become an all around lens as well. My issue is the "sharpness." That is more of a priority over DOF, if I had to choose.

Arguments?

 

[UrbanImages]

Definitely go with the 70-200 2.8... Not only do you have the extra stop, the IQ is amazing. Even if you're shooting static subjects in low light, I've found that 1/30 sec is good enough for hand held.