70-200mm f4L IS vs. 70-200mm f2.8L non IS?

[Chicken Pox]

Okay narrowed it down to these two to replace the Tamron 70-300, likely to go with extender but not too sure if better of to go with f4 IS or non IS f2.8; main usage will be some Motorsport (hence extender), the odd birds in the back garden and majority family (fast moving children!!).

Edging towards the 2.8 to cope with extender (on a crop sensor) , anyone got experience of the lenses able to advise?

Thanks

Pox

[cannedheat]

I've got the F4L IS and it's fricken awesome! Picture quality is great!

You can easily get sharp shots at 1/40 - 1/50 handheld thanks to the 4 stop IS.

I've never been left wanting the F2.8 model, that's for sure...

[finnyuk]

got the f4 and love it but find with motorsport I need that bit more and have tried the 100-400 and that is awesome too

[flat-planedCrank]

I've tried the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2 with a 2x converter and was disappointed with the AF - on a slightly overcast day it seemed to struggle. The 100-400 I tried at the same time had no issues at all.

This was using a 30D, so its possible that a newer body may fair better. I'd test the extender set-up before going for it - it seems like a good option to have if you already own a 70-200, but perhaps other routes to greater range might be worth looking at as well?


Hope this helps.

[14-7]

All taken with a 70-200mm f2.8 MKI. Had it a few months now but not really had many opportunities to use it.

[xrrr]

I have the f4 IS with the 1.4 extender. Bloody brilliant for almost everything. The time it was a little lacking was on safari earlier in the year. The extender takes the aperture up to f5.6 and therefore slightly reduces the flexibility in low light (which was most of the dawn and dusk game drives as the animals liked the shade!).

The f2.8 is almost twice the weight of the f4 I think and a little larger and a lot more cash.

[14-7]

xrrr said:

The f2.8 is almost twice the weight of the f4 I think and a little larger and a lot more cash.

The MKI 2.8 does weigh a lot and does take it's toll when stood holding it for a while.

However they can now be had for £899. Not bad value for such a cracking lens.

[Chicken Pox]

14-7 said:

xrrr said:

The f2.8 is almost twice the weight of the f4 I think and a little larger and a lot more cash.

The MKI 2.8 does weigh a lot and does take it's toll when stood holding it for a while.

However they can now be had for £899. Not bad value for such a cracking lens.

seen non-IS f2.8 for that sort of money, if Mk1 IS f2.8 around that money where did you see it? PM me if breaks any PH advert rules thanks

[Byker28i]

I had the f4, bought the f2.8 IS and not regretted it one bit. Absolutely stunning lens.

[M-J-B]

I've got the 2.8 L iS and a 24-70, 2.8, for everyday shooting, I can't think of a better pair to have (also got the 1.4x II just in case though )


Lawn Mower Racing World Championship 2010 by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr

Taken last Sunday, overcast and fast.

Edited by M-J-B on Tuesday 21st September 13:59

[14-7]

Chicken Pox said:

14-7 said:

xrrr said:

The f2.8 is almost twice the weight of the f4 I think and a little larger and a lot more cash.

The MKI 2.8 does weigh a lot and does take it's toll when stood holding it for a while.

However they can now be had for £899. Not bad value for such a cracking lens.

seen non-IS f2.8 for that sort of money, if Mk1 IS f2.8 around that money where did you see it? PM me if breaks any PH advert rules thanks

Sorry talking about the non-IS as per the OP.

Chicken Pox said:

or non IS f2.8

[Chicken Pox]

14-7 said:

Chicken Pox said:

14-7 said:

xrrr said:

The f2.8 is almost twice the weight of the f4 I think and a little larger and a lot more cash.

The MKI 2.8 does weigh a lot and does take it's toll when stood holding it for a while.

However they can now be had for £899. Not bad value for such a cracking lens.

seen non-IS f2.8 for that sort of money, if Mk1 IS f2.8 around that money where did you see it? PM me if breaks any PH advert rules thanks

Sorry talking about the non-IS as per the OP.

Chicken Pox said:

or non IS f2.8

lol I am the O/P, I know they pretty much same price for f2.8non-IS as f4 IS hence the question, thought you said used the IS 2.8f hence confusion.
Cheers anyway
Pox

[14-7]

Chicken Pox said:

lol I am the O/P, I know they pretty much same price for f2.8non-IS as f4 IS hence the question, thought you said used the IS 2.8f hence confusion.
Cheers anyway
Pox

Sorry, long day at work!! 7am to 9pm then home, dinner, quick check on computer for emails, PH etc, .

[RichTbiscuit]

I have the 70-200 f4 IS with the 1.4x extender and absolutely love it. Bought it specifically for my honeymoon to Singapore and Bali.


Dragon Shower by RFMphotography, on Flickr

[Chicken Pox]

Thanks all, decided on the 70-200mm f2.8L non IS....and ended up with s/hand IS version for a smidge more than the non-IS version, had a quick play at Modified Live @ Snetterton...

f5.6 GT500


f2.8 GT500


f2.8 100%Crop GT500


RB26 Engine


Driiiiiiift 70mm (140mm with 2x Ext)


200mm (400mm with 2x Ext)

by Injury Time on Flickr

Edited by Chicken Pox on Sunday 17th October 22:33

[S47]

Why not save some money?
Just buy the Cheapo bog standard F4 70-200 Non IS 'L' It beats all the other 70-200's for IQ except the new MK2 F2.8 but then thats megabucks

Edited by S47 on Monday 18th October 07:40

[RobDickinson]

S47 said:

Why not save some money?
Just buy the Cheapo bog standard F4 70-200 Non IS 'L' It beats all the other 70-200's for IQ except the new MK2 F2.8 but then thats megabucks

No it doesnt. The f4IS has a fourite element and is better for a start, and it may match the old 2.8 for image quality but its a stop slower.

There all great lenses regardless and most talk about IQ differences is pretty irrelevant.

Main issue is do you want f2.8 , the nice shallow DOF but extra cost and bulk? And it is fairly significant an f4L seems pretty small and light to me vs my f2.8

[markmullen]

One to think about is the F4 IS is weather sealed, the non IS 2.8 (or non IS 4 for that matter) isn't weathersealed, as such I went for the F4IS.

[Chicken Pox]

RobDickinson said:

S47 said:

Why not save some money?
Just buy the Cheapo bog standard F4 70-200 Non IS 'L' It beats all the other 70-200's for IQ except the new MK2 F2.8 but then thats megabucks

Main issue is do you want f2.8 , the nice shallow DOF but extra cost and bulk? And it is fairly significant an f4L seems pretty small and light to me vs my f2.8

I shoot 99% my fast moving children/portrait when they are still long enought hence 2.8f and IS was worth the extra imho. It really is a lump though but not an issue once used to it/balances the 40D/battery grip nicely :-)

[14-7]

markmullen said:

One to think about is the F4 IS is weather sealed, the non IS 2.8 (or non IS 4 for that matter) isn't weathersealed, as such I went for the F4IS.

Aren't all 'L' series lenses weatherproofed?