70-200 f/2.8L non-IS vs 70-200 f/4L IS...

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by tangcla, Dec 15, 2006.

  1. tangcla

    tangcla Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,368
    Location:
    Melbourne
    so question is, which would be the pick of the two.

    Both similarly priced
    the IS on the f/4 should bring it down to about f/2.8 handheld?
    the f/4 IS is lighter than the f/2.8 non-IS (~760g vs ~1.3kg?)
     
  2. Kyl3

    Kyl3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,035
    Location:
    The Hunter
    70-200 2.8 L is the winner..

    Unless it's an absolute must that you need IS.. ;)


    And has a tripod collar :Pirate:
     
  3. systemdown

    systemdown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    Brisbane 4107
    At fast shutter speeds when IS won't help, the f4 is limited by being.. well f4. At least with f2.8 non-IS you know it has a large constant aperture and might perform better in low light conditions vs. the f4. I don't know exactly how "pseudo" f2.8 potentially offered by IS compares to real f2.8.. but personally I'd go the f2.8 and not worry about losing IS. Does that make sense?
     
  4. EpHeSuS

    EpHeSuS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Bentleigh, Melbourne
    Imho, the 70-200 f/4L IS will be the better low light lens. The IS can compensate for about 2-3 stops and the lens is half the weight too.

    There is only one stop difference between the f/2.8 and f/4. Remember people, that isn't a huge difference. The only downfall the f/4 would have is for action in low light. But for still low light shots the IS will easily be the winner.

    As for the tripod collar - $100 on eBay and you got one (3rd party... apparently can't tell the difference)
     
  5. mpot

    mpot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,372
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Does it come with a tripod collar?
    I didn't think any of the 70-200 lenses came with a collar.

    Cheers,
    Martin.
     
  6. EpHeSuS

    EpHeSuS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Bentleigh, Melbourne
  7. mR_CaESaR

    mR_CaESaR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I could have sworn the f4IS didn't come with a collar, that site on the canon website i think only lists the optional accessories, and not what it comes with.

    F2.8 IS all the way baby!!! ;) :D
     
  8. Gumby

    Gumby Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    Brisbane
    2.8's come with a collar.

    I would get 2.8 over IS for faster shutter speeds for low light action photography, but thats just what I shoot.

    Also remember 2.8 will give you less DOF.

    In shopping for my 70-200 I tried to decide which to get between these 2. In the end I picked up the 70-200 2.8 IS second hand. :)
     
  9. mR_CaESaR

    mR_CaESaR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Thats what i decided too, me personally, if i was choosing the F2.8, it would only be the f2.8 IS, you can make the f2.8 IS into a non IS, but can't gain the 3 stops (for static objects) from the f2.8 unless it had IS (did that make sense??)

    Its two lenses in one ;)

    Shooting 1/60th @ 200mm is pretty awesome
     
  10. [AFX]Northy

    [AFX]Northy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Brisbane
    my 70-200 2.8L IS came with the tripod collar.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    tangcla

    tangcla Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,368
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'd love the 2.8IS... but budget won't stretch that far, def not for a while!

    I think my course of action will be to see what comes up cheaply first... i.e. if an f/4L non-IS comes up cheap, then I'll buy that, and upgrade later. Since L-series lenses keep their value and all... ;)
     
  12. mR_CaESaR

    mR_CaESaR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    My motto that i've learnt is "buy once and save" ;) :D

    As much as they hold their value, you will still loose a 100 or so dollars, as there aren't many people willing to purchase a lens that they can buy brand new for a hundred dollars more.

    Surely you don't need the 70-200 range THAT much that it needs to be purchased asap, save for a few more months, and then get the f2.8 IS, once you go f2.8 its quite hard to go anything slower :)
     
  13. nxsr20

    nxsr20 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'd go the 2.8. I've got the F4L non-IS atm, and will upgrade it to the 2.8 IS once I can afford it... which is no time soon :upset:
     
  14. jimmy

    jimmy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,091
    Location:
    Toowoomba, QLD
    ive got the F4 non is version, it's very good for the money and alot lighting then the F2.8 version, i wouldn't mind getting the IS version. If you can stand the weight and have the money go the F2.8 IS you wont be dissapointed.
     
  15. OP
    OP
    tangcla

    tangcla Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,368
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm going Hong Kong and Japan on Wednesday... :D
     
  16. mute

    mute Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,177
    Location:
    Melbourne
    It all depends on what you're shooting

    Mostly daylight = f/4L
    Mostly daylight & low light portraits = f/4L IS

    Low light sports, or need extra DOF = f/2.8L
    Low light sports, need extra DOF & low light portraits (eg. weddings) = f/2.8L IS

    I bought the f/4L and love it, it's an excellent walkaround and sports lens. Great value too :thumbup:

    Oh yeah, it struggles with low light sports photography though :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2006
  17. mR_CaESaR

    mR_CaESaR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    use your 10-22/24-70, thats all you'll need.

    If HK is like philippines, then those two lenses are pretty much all you'd need.

    10-22 for beautiful landscapes, and the 24-70 for portrait work, bring a prime for low light work.
     
  18. OP
    OP
    tangcla

    tangcla Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,368
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I think I'm tempted more towards the f/2.8 n-IS, the lowlight action stuff would actually come in handy.

    Still.. it depends on what I come across cheaper in respect to one another :D
     
  19. OP
    OP
    tangcla

    tangcla Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,368
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Packed:

    Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
    Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
    Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
    Canon Speedlite 580EX
    I hope my off-camera flash cord arrives before I leave...!
     
  20. wynode

    wynode Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,930
    Location:
    Sydney
    In regards to the original question I've had the same dilemma but what'll help you choose is how/when/where you plan to use the lenses.

    • f/2.8 will stop action in low light but f/4 IS won't
    • f/2.8 isn't as suitable for hand held shots as the f/4 IS (ie you can get away without a tri/monopod on the f/4IS)
    • f/2.8 isn't just one stop more than the f/4IS. It also has a larger front element to capture more light (77mm vs 67mm)
    • f/4 IS is MUCH MUCH lighter than the f2.8 so if you plan to carry the lens around a lot take this into account.
    • F/4IS doesn't have a tripod colour (then again it isn't near as heavy as the f2.8

    But given you only buy such lenses once........i'm going to save up for the f2.8 IS which can be had for around $2,600 new.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: