Thread: 70-200, which one?

So when I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 IS original I had every intention of buying the II. Now I am having second thoughts. I was fondling a friends 70-200 f/4 NON-IS. The thing is insanely light and we all know the image quality on this lens. So if you had to do it over again which of the 4 versions would you buy? I'm seriously leaning towards the f/4 non-IS. It's so ridiculously cheap, I love the lighter weight and really one stop isn't a deal breaker in my opinion. So... what say you? I think for $650 its a no brainer! And if I need more light I'll use my DG Super.

I can't compare it to anything else as this is all I've had but I'm really happy with my F4 non IS. I've gotten some nice skiing pics from it. I think I paid under $500 for it.

Shoot a lot at night? If not, no need for the faster glass.

Often shoot birds on land while having a seizure during an earthquake on a ship? If not, no need for the IS.

I've had the f4 cheapo version for a while and I've had zero reason to want the other versions.

Yeah that was kind of my feelings. I didn't think I would need the 2.8. I actually stopped down on my 2.8 just for more DOF often so there goes that. IS was always on so I never noticed if I needed it or not at 200mm. I have a pretty steady hand anyways. Only thing I could think about maybe wanting the 2.8 for is possible portraits but I have faster glass anyway. Think I have my answer. Plus I want to save moola. Thanks mangs!

$1800 for 1 stop and IS? Not worth it for me. I think that this lens is probably the absolute best deal you can get on a canon lens.

IS in general is just kind of funny to me.

I already own a tripod.

second to the nifty fifty

Nifty fifty is indeed a bargain, but you get real L build quality and optics with the 70-200.

I shoot lots of bike races and skiing with the 70-200 non IS. I don't shoot in gyms and when I need a stop I have a 200mm fixed that sits in a closet 361 days a year. The fixed lens takes slightly better images but for my needs (amateur hack) the 70-200 non IS does what I need done 99% of the time. Find a used one on POTN and you will be stoked.

I will throw a vote for 2.8 non IS version. Love mine. Subject separation at 2.8 even on bright day is awesome. With 1.4 converter I get 280 F4.

Having said that I like the size of F4 version. Weight does not bother me as much but you need to plan for size if you have camera bags.

What about skiing photos in the PacNW? F/2.8 or F/4? Is the 1 stop of light that much more helpful that it would justify the high price tag?
Thx.
-MC

Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd

I think for $650 its a no brainer!

Go refurb and its even cheaper. 70-200

I think Im going to save my pennies and spring for IS.

Originally Posted by MrClean

What about skiing photos in the PacNW? F/2.8 or F/4? Is the 1 stop of light that much more helpful that it would justify the high price tag?
Thx.
-MC

Not for me.

Depends on what weather you shoot in...

That white stuff on the ground is pretty reflective.

Not exactly a bad problem to have, but I couldn't pass it up when a nice fella on craigslist offered a 2.8 IS at $820. Now I can't decide which one to keep. The 2.8 IS is quite the brick.

WWMD if you had to choose between:
7D with 70-200 F4
40D with 70-200 2.8 IS

Roughly the same combined price now, though option 2 is probably worth more down the road.

Originally Posted by kalisto

Not for me.

Depends on what weather you shoot in...

That white stuff on the ground is pretty reflective.

The PACNW typically has great snow during storms so loss of days are in snow storms. Its tough to justify double the price for an amateur but if it creates more keepers per day then it might be worth waiting to find the funds.

Originally Posted by bfree

Not exactly a bad problem to have, but I couldn't pass it up when a nice fella on craigslist offered a 2.8 IS at $820. Now I can't decide which one to keep. The 2.8 IS is quite the brick.

WWMD if you had to choose between:
7D with 70-200 F4
40D with 70-200 2.8 IS

Roughly the same combined price now, though option 2 is probably worth more down the road.

7D and 70-200 f/4 would be my choice. I fondled one the other day and that 2.8 is like a boat anchor and I noticed a HUGE difference stepping up from 20D to 7D.

7D/70-200 F4 combo for me. Ditto above comment on big difference from 20D t0 7D.

I pulled my F4 70-200 out of the pack this year after skiing and being winded and I wa a little shaky trying to get shot at 200 mm and I really wished I had the IS on it. The IS on my 24-105 has spoiled me I think. Also I don't think my F4 without IS is weather sealed. Still an unreal lens for the $590 I paid for it brand new.

Originally Posted by MrClean

The PACNW typically has great snow during storms so loss of days are in snow storms. Its tough to justify double the price for an amateur but if it creates more keepers per day then it might be worth waiting to find the funds.

Unless you're not in a complete white-out, I find the amount of light available is still generally pretty good...

... and yes, us folks up in Vancouver know all about storm skiing.

kalisto -
Thx for the recommendations. Yeah, it's hard to justify double the price (F4 IS vs F2.8 IS mkII) and double the weight for 1 stop given I'm just an amateur with no ambition to ever become a pro.
-MC