canon 70-200mm f4 L IS vs canon 70-200mm f2.8 L NON IS

[Ritchiec80]

Hi Guys

What would you recommend either the canon 70-200mm f4 L IS or I could afford the canon 70-200mm f2.8 L NON IS version. I'd mainly using it for weddings. Would I get away with the 4f with IS given that most of the shots I take of couples would probably be on around f4 to ensure good focus or would the f2.8 with no IS be more suitable as they are more or less the same one. I've seen good reviews on the f4 L for people doing weddings and reportage style photography. Any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers

Ritchie

[AndrewKulin]

I don't do weddings, heck I'm not even a real photographer, so bear that in mind when reading on.

The f/2.8 might get you faster focus (it passes more light than an f/4), and allow you to get a shot in less light than the regular (non-IS) f/4 (1-stop worth). It is expensive, but as I recall, the pricing for the two lenses you are considering is roughly the same. Weight is also a consideration. I have the 2.8 IS, and it is heavy.

I have seen (somewhere in the past) that the f/4 version is also a tad better optically than the f/2.8 (this was before the release of the f/2.8 IS II which you are not considering anyway).

The most important advantage of the f/4 you are considering is its IS capabilities (supposedly 4 stops worth). Lets you handhold with slower shutter speed than a regular lens. I think that one feature would seal the deal, particularly if you have to take a lot of your shots hand-held..

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[KeithT]

My view is this: This is a heavy lens and one you might not want to hand hold for too long a stretch at a time. IS would be great if you did though. I see this lens a candidate for tripod shots and that really negates IS. You have to ask yourself not what you are going to use it for, but how you intend using it. If mainly from a tripod save your money and buy the non IS. If your intention is to hand hold this lens then you will certainly need IS in my opinion.

[EwanM]

I brought a new f/4 IS version last weekend.

The difference in low light between having the IS on and off is very noticable, especially at full zoom. I would definately recommend considering the IS version.

Ewan

[Markulous]

We tried the f/4 IS and then tried the f/2.8 non-IS and we've now got one f/2.8 IS and one f/2.8 non-IS (both s/h before anyone thinks we're made of money!). I mainly use the non-IS as it's a touch sharper but if I ever shot weddings (perish the thought!) I'd use the f/2.8 IS every time!

Edit: I handhold all my shots with either lens - they're heavy but not that bad (try a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 - now that's heavy!)

[rbarry]

Unless your subject matter will generally be in a poorly lit environment, the F4 IS should be a contender for your ultimate choice.

The ability of modern camera bodies to take high iso images without adversely compromising the resulting exposure, together with the excellent IS capabilities of the F4 lens allowing between a 3 or 4 f-stop advantage may be the answer to what you need.

The quality of the F4 lens in daylight conditions is superb, but one of the biggest advantages of the F4 IS over the 2.8 IS or non IS, is the weight difference.

Your original thread was comparing the F4 IS with the 2.8 non IS, so if the 2.8 IS isn't on your list, then I know which one I would choose. If the 2.8 IS is within your budget, I would still condisder getting the F4 IS and another lower middle range zoom with good glass and a low F number.

[OldBoy]

I use the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR plus 1.4 converter with the D3 as a walkabout lens, and don't find it a problem even tramping through woods and fields all day.

If you think the Sigma 500mm F4.5 is heavy then you wouldn't want my AIS 400mm F2.8 which is 6kg.

[alisonryde]

I would definately rent before you make up your mind. The f2.8 is quite a lot heavier, but I have found the f/4 a bit slow to focus in less light. So if you know you are shooting a lot indoors without a flash..........
Good luck.