Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS vs 70-200 f4 IS

[FrogLAH]

HI! New to SLR. Got myself a Canon 30D two months back. I have the 17-85 IS f4-5.6 and the 50mm f1.8 now.
Now looking to get the 70-200 zoom. APart from the obvious less expensive and lighter that the f4 lense got over the f2.8, what other differentiation points are there that would make one stand out more than the other? So I am like confused now..like do i need f2.8 if i have a flash, is the 2.8 depth of field significant enough? etc..Also thought about 135mm f2 but thought i can kinda get that range with the f2.8. So, appreciate any advice you guys can give assuming that the f2.8 weight and cost is not an issue.

 

[raptor84]

If weight and cost is no issue then get the 2.8 IS =p

It would depend largely on what you want to shoot and where you shoot it. Indoors would generally require a 2.8 while the f/4 is a great outdoor lens. The IS does help eliminate handshake but will not freeze motion though. Also the IS counterparts tend to have slightly lower IQ thanks to the additional elements of glass.

I personally like my f/4 non IS due to its weight and image quality wide open. If the IS version can match the IQ without a significant increase in weight then it would be an attractive choice..

 

[kcuf2]

i think the premium on the 70-200 f4 IS is too hefty already..really no point, might as well just get the 70-200 IS.. its better at 2.8 anyway and since u mentioned that cost and weight is not an issue..

*only* when cost and weight is an issue, then maybe can consider the 70-200 F4 non-IS version.. the IS is really not not not worth it

 

[lightning]

If you can afford the F4 IS, then I suggest you consider the f2.8 non-IS. The result of the 2.8 non-IS is very sharp wide open.

 

[wanzw]

may i suggest the 70-200 2.8 NON IS version. it is really sharp.

if your hands are steady enough there is really no need for IS.

personally own the 2.8 non IS version. solid performer.

 

[megaweb]

f2.8 over f4
- shallower DOF
- 1 stop faster

f4 over 2.8
- lighter weight
- cheaper

 

[FrogLAH]

Thank you all sinseh for the advise. Really appreciate the help in narrowing down between the two. Think i'd be going with the f2.8. I thought about none IS version, but when i tested with my friend's non IS, at 200mm, I dont think I am steady enough. I want to be using this lens indoors/low light condition, so, will try to use as slow shutter speed as possible and not wanting to go beyond ISO 400.

 

[raptor84]

Any particulare reason why you dont want to exceed ISO 400. Canon's images are pretty clean even at ISO1600

 

[FrogLAH]

Any particulare reason why you dont want to exceed ISO 400. Canon's images are pretty clean even at ISO1600

Eh, haha..err, spoke with some SI FUs/jedi masters and was advised to avoid. Also think that it's a good way for me to train for techniques by restricting myself..if that makes sense. DID some macro on Saturday with a couple of buddies using 1600, image was decently clean. Thanks for comment. You a fellow canon user as well?

 

[raptor84]

Eh, haha..err, spoke with some SI FUs/jedi masters and was advised to avoid. Also think that it's a good way for me to train for techniques by restricting myself..if that makes sense. DID some macro on Saturday with a couple of buddies using 1600, image was decently clean. Thanks for comment. You a fellow canon user as well?

Yes I own a 350D. I also try to avoid using the higher ISOs as much as possible but its good to know that even when i have to resort to it, its gonna be pretty clean.