# Canon 70-200 F4 IS or F2.8 (non IS)?



## Vertvorb (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm looking to get a telephoto for sports photography to go with my 5D MK3. I cant decide between these 2, my budget is in this range.

The F4 appeals as its meant to have better image quality and it has IS but its only F4

F2.8 appeals because its faster, but its heavier also

At the moment i am leaning towards the F4 but the F2.8 apeture would be so nice


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 25, 2012)

Personally I have the the 70 - 200 2.8L Non IS and the 70 - 200 2.8L II IS and for great stop action the 2.8s are great, at 2.8 you really don't need IS with a steady hand. If your going to take sport photo's @ night, I would go with the 2.8


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2012)

Absolutely without question the f/2.8 is your lens. A brighter lens will AF faster which is critical for effective high hit rate sports shooting. Also you'll be able to shoot indoor or sports under lights a whole lot more easily, plus with a f/2.8 lens you have the viable option of adding a x1.4 converter and still have a 280mm f/4. 

The f/4 may have marginally better IQ than the f/2.8 in static controlled conditions, but do keep in perspective that the f/2.8 is regarded as one of the finest zooms ever produced, and is the 70-200 zoom of choice for the majority of Canon professionals.

For sports, don't even think about anything other than the f/2.8. Visit the often brilliant site SportsShooter http://www.sportsshooter.com for more insights from seasoned sports shooters.

Paul Wright


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 26, 2012)

I read on The Digital Picture that the author there turns off IS while shooting sports. Seems a little counter-intuitive, and he does not say anything about why.

Would this likely just be because his shutter speed is so high to capture the action that camera shake is irrelevant? Or might a person do this just to save battery power? Or could vigorous panning done with the IS on impart some kind of feedback problem between IS and the panning motion?

I ask because the non-IS 2.8 is something I am thinking about for my little girls' soccer. Although I have to say it is a little comical to describe a Kindergartener's "speed" as being especially "high," even though she thinks she is like greased lightening.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 26, 2012)

I would go with the 2.8 if weight is not an issue. If you will be shooting sports then a high shutter speed will be required and the IS will not be as big of concern. And as already mentioned indoors will be much easier to shoot with the 2.8!


----------



## risc32 (Mar 26, 2012)

Really consider the size/weight of the 2.8, and the filter sizes. That said i went with the nonIS 2.8 years ago, and I have no regrets at all. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28.htm Says you don't have to worry about the nonIS's image quality, and I believe it.


----------



## otsink (Mar 26, 2012)

I had a similar dilemma a few years ago. I was shooting primarily sports (Lacrosse outdoors as well as Volleyball indoors) I went with the 2.8 Non IS due to the higher shutter speeds negating the need for IS. For indoor volleyball the 2.8 is a must have (and for nighttime lacrosse games). I added a 1.4x teleconverter for the extra reach on the large lacrosse field for use during the day. I will say that as my shooting has expanded beyond sports, I have had occasions where the IS would have been nice to have. The weight has never bothered me.


----------



## lexonio (Mar 26, 2012)

So really, not a single word in defence of the f/4? It's twice as light and much easier to carry around, and it also has IS - is the f/2.8 non-stabilised THAT much better?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 26, 2012)

For sports, action-stopping is usually achieved by pushing the shutter speed up really high - like 1/2000 of a second - and at those shutter speeds, motion blur and camera shake are pretty much non-existent. No IS is needed at those shutter speeds.

A larger aperture will allow for quicker shutter speeds, and also for quick shutter speeds at less light.

The advantages to the 70-200 f/4L IS are its weight and slightly better sharpness compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L. 

Personally I was looking for a nice walkaround lens for my current crop camera that would go on to become a nice portrait lens when I switch full-frame. I picked the 70-200 f/4L IS because of IS, weight and sharpness. But as said: if sports are your main shooting interests, the larger aperture version without IS is probably a better choice for the money.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 26, 2012)

I have the f/4 IS and I love it. I find myself consistantly wanting the low light capibilities of the 2.8. I shoot weddings... Not sports so IS is very valuable to me. I am looking to upgrade to the 2.8 IS but $ is tight right now. 

The selection of the 70-200's give you the option to decide what lens is best for YOUR photography style. 

The main question is... Do you want IS or DOF

With IS on the f/4 IS I can shoot at 1/15 with little to no problem. 

If your subject is not moving then I would recommend f/4 IS...

If your subject will be moving 2.8


Only my opinion


----------



## lexonio (Mar 26, 2012)

With 5DMKIII the low-light capabilities of f/4 are increased greatly when compared to the f/2.8 on 5DMKII, not taking bokeh and DoF into account though.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 26, 2012)

lexonio said:


> With 5DMKIII the low-light capabilities of f/4 are increased greatly when compared to the f/2.8 on 5DMKII, not taking bokeh and DoF into account though.



With fast moving sports, it seems there is never enough light! I spend most of my time shooting (sports) at 2.8 simply because I have to do that to get the shutter speed fast enough to capture the action. The high ISO capability of the 5d3 will definitely help in that department, and there are times where I functionally miss the shots due to the DOF at 2.8 whereas it would have been a keeper at 4.0. That being said, I can't imagine trying to capture sports at 4.0.

Oh, wait a minute, yes I can. I have the 24-105 f/4.0 but frequently forget about it because I almost never use it because it simply can't capture the movement like I can with the 2.8 on my 70-200. : And as others have mentioned or at least alluded to, IS is often worthless with sports. The one time I do us it is in panning shots where I want a nice motion blur on the background, then mode 2 can be handy.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Mar 26, 2012)

With fast moving sports, it seems there is never enough light! [/quote]

Agreed!


----------



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 27, 2012)

70-200 f4 IS would be my pick with the 5d3. F4 is extremely sharp wide open. Plus with the ISO boost of the 5d3, I'd say 2.8 is not needed anymore unless you need the smaller DOF. Another reason is the f4 is smaller, lighter, and more portable. (Prior to my 70-200mm f4 IS and 5d classic, I had a d300 with 70-200 2.8 VR. - best switch decision ever!)


----------



## nickbj05 (Mar 30, 2012)

I highly recommend going with the 2.8 since you are shooting sports. I know the 5D MKIII has great ISO performance, but you would be surprised how quickly you will be increasing the ISO as the light starts to dim. For example, tonight I went out the lake to take some photos of birds and other wild life about 3 hours before sunset. While shooting under the trees, I was at ISO 400 at F/2.8. When I switched lenses and was limited to F/5.6 in the shadier spots, I was at ISO6400 to get a shutter speed of 1/500. Sure, you can shoot at that ISO on the MKIII, but you still have some noise and loss of detail. The IS won't help you at all for shooting sports, but the one stop in aperture could come in handy. 

I tried to decide between the same two lenses about two years ago and went with the 2.8 and do not regret my decision.


----------



## katwil (Mar 30, 2012)

The IS on the f/4 would only be of use if your subject is static, which wouldn’t apply to most aspects of sports photography. The f/2.8 will allow for better shots with low lighting and more DOF with good lighting. On a recent baseball spring training outing I took my 35-350L for daytime shots and my 70-200L f/2.8 for evening games. My 70-200L f/4 IS didn’t make the trip. Weight is a subjective issue, so it’s hard to comment on that one.

As you should be able to shoot at very high ISO on the Mk III and IS will be of limited use in sports photography, would you have any thoughts of going with the non-IS version of the f/4?


----------



## Magnumphotography (Mar 30, 2012)

I too am on the 2.8 bandwagon. The f2.8 Mark III combo, will give you the best autofocus performance the camera can deliver. Also the brighter finder. I own both the mark III and 70-200 f2.8L. I'm very happy with the combo! Weight wise, it's all relative. You get use to it. I mostly shoot with a 500 f4 and now my 3 pound lenses feel like feather weights. Oh and Keep in mind, the 70-200 f4 does not include a tripod collar. So factor in that cost if applicable.


----------



## iaind (Apr 1, 2012)

Had the same dilemma two years ago. Opted for the 2.8 and haven't regretted my decision.


----------



## pwp (Apr 1, 2012)

lexonio said:


> So really, not a single word in defence of the f/4? It's twice as light and much easier to carry around, and it also has IS - is the f/2.8 non-stabilised THAT much better?



It's not a matter of "defending" the f/4, it's determining which lens is going to best suit the OP's need to shoot action sports. 
The f/4 would certainly be first choice for plenty of other specific needs, but the OP has been correctly advised to look to the f/2.8 in this instance.

Paul Wright


----------



## akiskev (Apr 1, 2012)

Between the 2, get the 70-200 f4 is.


----------



## Cali_PH (Apr 1, 2012)

I just bought the f/4 version, very glad there was a lighter, cheaper option to the f/2.8. My needs are a bit different than most it seems, since my main focus is landscape, and most of my shooting is with a 10-22 EF-S or 24-105L. I'm sure I'd love the 2.8 version on occasion, but I know most of the time I'd be leaving it out of my pack, especially on longer hikes.


----------



## echojs (May 3, 2012)

I can agree with the 2.8 for sports but I'd like to interject the same question here if I may regarding wedding photography. I have a great copy of the f4L non-IS but I need to upgrade. The 2.8 IS mkii is way out of budget at the moment. My options are these two as well. The sharpness of the f4 seems to be quite a bit better according to digital picture's testing, but that's all I have to go on. I do plan on getting the 100mm 2.8L IS macro as well. On the other hand, I wouldn't be using the new lens only for weddings... it would become an all around lens as well. My issue is the "sharpness." That is more of a priority over DOF, if I had to choose.

Arguments?


----------



## UrbanImages (May 3, 2012)

Definitely go with the 70-200 2.8... Not only do you have the extra stop, the IQ is amazing. Even if you're shooting static subjects in low light, I've found that 1/30 sec is good enough for hand held.


----------

