Wondering if you could help me out quickly, i picked up a 70-200mm non IS second hand and its great, this is my first USM lens and the focusing doesnt seem that fast compared to my non USM 50mm 1.8. Is this normal as i know primes are faster but the difference can be a lot at times. Should i get it looked at or is this normal.
@bronze5420 The f/4 IS and the new f/2.8 IS II are about the same. At f/4 you have more depth of field than at f/2.8. If you can afford it go for the f/2.8 IS II because it has the updated IS mech and also the wider aperture, which you really need for an indoor church ceremony for example.
i went with the f/2.8 non-IS and i love it. i'll admit that at 200mm there is significant shake especially in the 2.8 considering how heavy it is, so IS is definitely helpful. and technically, the f/4.0 with IS can shoot at slower shutter speeds and stuff for still objects, but if you're shooting sports or anything fast, that's when 2.8 will be more beneficial. 2.8 will allow you to crank up the shutter speed that much higher than the 4.0 because in this case, the IS is "useless".
@waynechengg I agree, for sports 100%, you need the 2.8 IS (and version II at that). For what I shoot, weddings, were people are pretty motionless when I need the IS, the f/4 works for me, is much sharper (especially at f/2.8) and MUCH lighter. I've owned both the f/2.8 (version I) and f/4, I still have the f/4 IS.
@danvprod : This has helped me as am deciding on a budget, to take the f4.0 with or with out IS, i too will rearly be sport shooting so guess will go for the one withou IS as i cant afford the xtra and trying to beat the VAT deadline in Jan 2001...LOL thanx
Hey - here are my thoughts. the f/2.8 is nice for portraits and shooting indoors, in theory though you can shoot sharp shots at lower shutter speeds with the IS (4 stops) 1/30 @ f/4 for the IS @ 200mm vs. 1/125 for the f/2.8 @ 2.8. Plus the f/4 is lighter. The f/2.8 is a sexy piece of lens though. If you can get a good deal on a used f/2.8 I would go for thoughts but I really like smooth, out-of-focus backgrounds - Good luck!
the f/2.8 is clearly the better glass, especially for sports photography, and lower light conditions (2.8 is simply twice as 'fast' as 4; so you can shoot 1/200 instead of 1/100 or iso200 instead of iso400). However on the downside, the f/2.8 is 1600g, more than twice as heavy as the f/4. It's almost double the price too.
@vandervalz: I was also faced with the same question a few months ago so I rented both for a while to get a feel of it. All I can say is that at this range, IS really shines. So after renting both, I decided to get the F4 L is.
Hey man, I need help which should I choose That lens or the f/2.8 70-200mm L lens(non-is) their price are very near to each other(it's like they only differ at a hundred bucks) On that lens: -IS -Sharp On the 2.8 non-IS lens: -Wide Aperture (although I do have a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens which has a bigger aperture than this) which should I pick?
nice lens but freakin expensive!
mitsubishidiamante 9 months ago
Wondering if you could help me out quickly, i picked up a 70-200mm non IS second hand and its great, this is my first USM lens and the focusing doesnt seem that fast compared to my non USM 50mm 1.8. Is this normal as i know primes are faster but the difference can be a lot at times. Should i get it looked at or is this normal.
AlTyler138 1 year ago
which is sharper, the f/4 is or the f/2.8 is
bronze5420 1 year ago
@bronze5420 The f/4 IS and the new f/2.8 IS II are about the same. At f/4 you have more depth of field than at f/2.8. If you can afford it go for the f/2.8 IS II because it has the updated IS mech and also the wider aperture, which you really need for an indoor church ceremony for example.
danvprod 1 year ago
i went with the f/2.8 non-IS and i love it. i'll admit that at 200mm there is significant shake especially in the 2.8 considering how heavy it is, so IS is definitely helpful. and technically, the f/4.0 with IS can shoot at slower shutter speeds and stuff for still objects, but if you're shooting sports or anything fast, that's when 2.8 will be more beneficial. 2.8 will allow you to crank up the shutter speed that much higher than the 4.0 because in this case, the IS is "useless".
waynechengg 1 year ago
@waynechengg I agree, for sports 100%, you need the 2.8 IS (and version II at that). For what I shoot, weddings, were people are pretty motionless when I need the IS, the f/4 works for me, is much sharper (especially at f/2.8) and MUCH lighter. I've owned both the f/2.8 (version I) and f/4, I still have the f/4 IS.
danvprod 1 year ago
@danvprod : This has helped me as am deciding on a budget, to take the f4.0 with or with out IS, i too will rearly be sport shooting so guess will go for the one withou IS as i cant afford the xtra and trying to beat the VAT deadline in Jan 2001...LOL thanx
eyetc 1 year ago
Hey - here are my thoughts. the f/2.8 is nice for portraits and shooting indoors, in theory though you can shoot sharp shots at lower shutter speeds with the IS (4 stops) 1/30 @ f/4 for the IS @ 200mm vs. 1/125 for the f/2.8 @ 2.8. Plus the f/4 is lighter. The f/2.8 is a sexy piece of lens though. If you can get a good deal on a used f/2.8 I would go for thoughts but I really like smooth, out-of-focus backgrounds - Good luck!
danvprod 2 years ago
what to choose ? the 70-200mm f/2.8 (non IS) or the 70-200mm f/4 IS ????? please help me . thanx a lot :D
vandervalz 2 years ago
vandervalz,
the f/2.8 is clearly the better glass, especially for sports photography, and lower light conditions (2.8 is simply twice as 'fast' as 4; so you can shoot 1/200 instead of 1/100 or iso200 instead of iso400). However on the downside, the f/2.8 is 1600g, more than twice as heavy as the f/4. It's almost double the price too.
mc2w 2 years ago
thanks for the explanation (mc2w) :D
vandervalz 2 years ago
@vandervalz: I was also faced with the same question a few months ago so I rented both for a while to get a feel of it. All I can say is that at this range, IS really shines. So after renting both, I decided to get the F4 L is.
Superbeast1980 1 year ago
Comment removed
whoppers1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
whoppers1000 2 years ago
RyanTheTuber 2 years ago
i have to say the IS is very very effective !
while 2.8 non IS , you really need to be really carefull when u zoom in for photo !!
i would go for IS if i were u
handsomelok 2 years ago
I went to a thread in Flickr and most of them told me that they don't use this very much. The two lenses they use a lot are the ff:
24-70mm f/2.8L USM
135mm f/2.0L USM
I'm going to get that maybe... in 2011 =DDD... then at 2012, I'm probably going to move up to a FF camera...
"Little by little goes a long way" =DDDDDD
RyanTheTuber 2 years ago
The world is going under in 2012, you better get a fullframe-camera before that, my friend. :D
AndreasFehrm 2 years ago
bought the 24-70mm first. I'm going to watched 2012 on the new year celebration of 2013! HAHA!
RyanTheTuber 2 years ago
i have to say the IS is very very costly!
handsomelok 2 years ago
how much does this lens cost
thanks
tadej172 2 years ago
he said in the beganing he got in online for 380 included P+P cost
handsomelok 2 years ago
It was sold last week on ebay
danvprod 3 years ago
do you have one for sale cheap/
IMTHEWEB 3 years ago