Canon 70-200, f4 or f2.8, IS or no IS.

Jorge

Jorge

Suspended / Banned
Messages
360
Name
George
Edit My Images
Yes
This is how it goes, I hired a 70-300 f4-5.6 over the weekend to get some shots at Donington Park. I loved it, and so many came out better than I could have hoped. I am thinking about making a larger telephoto lens part of my kit, reading online the 70-300 is easily beaten by the 70-200, and whilst I did find that I used the 200+ range quite a bit I was thinking about a Canon extender instead as the quality of the 200 seems much better.

I have been offered a 70-200 f4 non IS for quite a good price, I was looking for something with IS initially but looking at the costs I don't think I can justify it yet. It is purely for a hobby and I will be going back to living the student budget life in September so should be sensible with money really.

My question is, is the f2.8 / IS needed? I found that when shooting at the weekend with the bright light it didn't go anywhere near like f9 or 10 let alone f4 or 5.6, and with motorsport (which is what it will be used for mostly) is IS that essential? I forgot to test it at the weekend switched on and off to see what the difference was and I've sent the lens back now. The prices seem to be about £200-300 different for IS over non-IS, rising to over £1000 to buy one of the 2.8 ISs brand new. The f4s are out there new for less than half that.

Or are the Sigma / Tamron f2.8 alternates something worth looking at?

Any input will be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS Mk1 and love it. In any lighting conditions, with or without my 1.4tc bolted on it just produces great images. If you could stretch your budget to get one, you wouldn't be disapointed. And if weight is an issue, a monopod would help. Also, as above, the weather sealing is first class.

Ian
 
For speed - remember the f2.8 versions will focus at f2.8 even if your shooting at much smaller apertures.
 
IS makes a huge difference.
I used to own the old 70-200 non IS and as good as it was I found F4 too slow. With the addition of IS this has been solved.
The 2.8 version is also an option but is twice the weight and a whole lot bigger.
 
I love my F4 IS, incredibly sharp even wide open. It is by far and away my most used lens as it's so versatile. I use it for motorsport, kids playing in the garden, the beach, airshows, zoo trips, parks etc.

As mentioned only the IS versions have dust/weather sealing, which for me has been handy over the time I've had the lens.
 
Thanks, pretty much settled on having something with IS. Not got the most stable of hands at times.

Time to hunt down a bargain then... or find somewhere who will offer interest free finance for 3-6m, only got about £550 at the moment which won't stretch to a F4 IS yet.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/74238/show.html

These do come out quite well in reviews, just no IS.
 
Last edited:
You could consider the 200L II which although doesn't have zoom or IS is a superb kens and optically as good as the 2.8 zoom.
 
I purchased a 70-200 f/4 non IS a few months back. Produces excellent images however there are times where I really could have done with IS. For now it's a stepping stone for an intended upgrade to a 2.8 IS as the extra light and bokeh is something desirable for me. My advice is always go with IS if you can afford it, it will likely increase the amount of keepers in your collection.
 
you may find with the natural light we often have the 2.8 allows for more flexibility and creativity. you probably could find a Mk I well priced used now that the MkII has been out for while. BTW 200mm on a crop will be fine at many tracks, I always take my 70-200, 24-105 and 100-400 to the track. There is a place to shoot from for each lens at most track, I even used my 17-40 on the inside of lodge at Oulton. Lastly the 70-200f2.8 & 1.4 TC combo has worked gret for me.
 
I am sure that 200 would be enough on track, Donington without a media pass though left me quite limited to where I could stand..

I am pretty set on a f4 IS now, the weight and price of the 2.8 are both too much for me. The London Camera Exchange in Derby has one I think at 699, so may go take a nosey tonight.
 
Nikon don't do an f4 (sadly).

Have the first version of the 2.8 VR (IS equivalent). I could live without the VR, I couldn't without the 2.8. If you're up at the high SS for sports (though I guess motorsports will be slower for panning etc) VR doesn't help. An extra stop means you can halve shutter speed.

Perhaps go for a used 2.8 IS 1 - the new ones don't seem to be worth the price increase over a used old version unless you have the cash to spare.
 
The F4 wins hands down on weight and price but F4 can be very limiting. I changed mine for a 100-400 zoom but often really miss the lighter lens.

At the end of the day only you know what your priorities are, if you need fast shutter speeds then you really do need the 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top