Canon EF 70-200 / 2.8 non IS vs 4.0 IS
Feb 1, 2012 06:41:51 #
I rented the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 non IS to see if it was something I wanted to buy. It does seem to be as wonderful as all the reviews say it is. But, for me, it is way too heavy for regular use. So now I'm thinking of the f/4.0 model with IS because I understand it is much lighter and physically smaller. Opinions, one way or another, appreciated.
Feb 1, 2012 07:06:41 #
Well....obviously the f/stop is a key factor.
You will have a much harder time shooting indoor sports with a lens that starts at f/4 rather than f/2.8
As far as the size and weight...I can't comment, I can't afford either. :)
You will have a much harder time shooting indoor sports with a lens that starts at f/4 rather than f/2.8
As far as the size and weight...I can't comment, I can't afford either. :)
Feb 1, 2012 07:26:50 #
I love the 2.8 and got the N IS version. I have rented both and really couldn't tell the difference in sport pictures. The F4, I rented, didn't like, indoor pictures never turned out! the 2.8 is the one!
Feb 1, 2012 08:29:52 #
i have the 2.8 IS version. i have had it for 6 months..i have never used the IS. i had my 24-70mm2.8L before i bought it and learned to shoot without the IS, since it doesn't have it. photos are crystal sharp.
i have a very good friend that has the 4.0 version..and he gets great low light shots at the local school gymnasium....shoots with 800 or 1600 ISO..his stuff is great.
google Phil Steele, a photographer in LA that uses the 4.0 model. his stuff is awesome..and he has some inexpensive training available.
steeletraining.com
i have a very good friend that has the 4.0 version..and he gets great low light shots at the local school gymnasium....shoots with 800 or 1600 ISO..his stuff is great.
google Phil Steele, a photographer in LA that uses the 4.0 model. his stuff is awesome..and he has some inexpensive training available.
steeletraining.com
Feb 2, 2012 08:57:56 #
I shoot with the IS version. When hand-holding it rocks! Weight is not an issue for me when it comes to the quality of the image. Good luck with your decision!
Feb 2, 2012 08:59:13 #
well, it is suppose to be delivered today! I figure with the money I saved, I can get another lens in the near future!
Feb 2, 2012 09:38:02 #
I have the 4.0 n is version and love it. At a recent indoor rodeo i shot at 1600 iso and another photographer was there using the 2.8 version and when the pics were compared the difference was so slight that an untrained eye could not tell the difference. it is all about knowing your equipment and what you can do with it.
Feb 2, 2012 09:44:04 #
Feb 2, 2012 13:09:57 #
I have them both on my two Canon frames. In-case if you getting only one of this two and shooting mostly wildlife and/or outdoor sport in good daylight. I would get 100-400mm /4 L and it is better to have with IS. As coming to the weight, Canon L pro glass is heavy they are not plastic. I carry my long zoom tool on shoulder sliding slink " R" Blackrapid.com. In side shooting sport, plays, weddings 70-200 /2.8 L IS will coming as winner and my first choice. Tamron better glass is on plastic tubes it is cheaper and less on weight. Maybe 100-300mm I used to have as only one..lens to carry.
Feb 2, 2012 18:58:09 #
Here is what would influence me - the 2.8 with 2x can go to 400mm with AF ......the F4 with 1.4X can only go to 280mm max with AF. I have both and never take the extenders off.
Feb 2, 2012 20:55:21 #
iresq
Loc: Annapolis MD
If someone would send me a copy of each, I would be more than happy to make a comparison and review. Of course I will need some time with each to make sure I truly understand the in's and out's of each. I'll pay shipping.
Feb 3, 2012 01:08:27 #
olcoach
Loc: Oregon
Hi, The 2.8 is heavier than the 4.0. One of my favorite pro photographers that has an outdoor photography show on PBS recently went to the 4.0 from the 2.8 as he felt the 2.8 was too heavy. I use the 2.8 to photograph my grandkids high school sports as I need the extra speed but I have it a monopod making the weight almost a non-issue. You might try that as I really like the 2.8 but you'll have to make up you're own mind. Good luck, and keep shootin'. Mike
Feb 3, 2012 17:18:05 #
Riggs
Loc: Central Coast Ca.
I have the 2.8 and love it. for speed there is no comparison, the weight doesn't bother me and I shoot with out a strap.
The extender is great on that lens
Good luck with your decision.
The extender is great on that lens
Good luck with your decision.
Feb 3, 2012 17:18:06 #
Riggs
Loc: Central Coast Ca.
I have the 2.8 and love it. for speed there is no comparison, the weight doesn't bother me and I shoot with out a strap.
The extender is great on that lens
Good luck with your decision.
The extender is great on that lens
Good luck with your decision.
Mar 16, 2012 12:03:33 #
Thanks all for the great replies! My question is the same. 2.8 non-IS vs 2.8 IS 70-200 glass. My only other IS glass is the kit lens that came with my 40D. (f 5.6) because it is slow I don't use IS that much as I tend to shoot when there is sufficient light. It seems if I use a pod anytime I shoot less than 1/60th of a second or so, I can use the 2.8 non IS and use some of the savings to by a high quality extender and some good filters for the glass. When i am shooting 70-200mm I find I will be outside and most likely will have plenty of light to Keep my shutter speed up and hand hold. Any thoughts?
Any comments wil
be appreciated.
Any comments wil
be appreciated.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.