questionsi have a canon 70-200. should i get f4 is or f2.8…

vote-for5vote-against
vote-for2vote-against

Also, the lenses I currently own (with uses) are listed below (to quell any questions as to what I mostly shoot).

100mm F2.8 USM Macro: Well, obviously macro, but also portraits and medium telephoto.
50mm F1.8: Mostly portraits (people and pets).
10-22mm F3.5-4.5: Landscapes, cars, raves.

vote-for3vote-against

I have both a 400mm without IS and a 300mm with IS so I know about this. I can't stand the 400mm lens. You need a bunch of light to keep a high shutter speed or you'll get motion blur. The IS on the 300 really helps. I've taken much better pictures with the 300 than the 400 so I don't use the 400 any longer.

Want to by a 400mm lens? JK.

The IS feature is extremely important for high zoom lenses and less important for wide angle lenses. Still, if you have a f2.8 lens, you don't always want the aperture that wide open because it affects your depth of field. So, if you're going to use your 70 - 200 lens in the 70mm position most of the time, IS is not too important; however, if you plan on using the 200 mm position frequently, I'd consider getting the IS feature.

vote-for2vote-against

Thanks for the info, it's looking like I'm currently leading toward the F4 IS. I don't want to be forced to bring a tripod everywhere or have to always be in bright conditions (indoor arenas can be poorly lit).

Does anyone know if a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter will work with the F4 IS? I've read it's compatible but autofocus doesn't work...

vote-for2vote-against

Hmmm. Lovely Deals.Woot mods decided to rename my Question title to "I have a Canon 70-200...." No I don't. If I did have a 70-200, I wouldn't ask which one should I get. Also, thanks for always changing my tags mods.

vote-for3vote-against

Here's my 2 cents:

The situations you mentioned all seem to have plenty of light. This means one would be using the extra f-stops purely for shallower DOF. At 200mm, you're gonna be like 25 yards away in order to get a portrait, and the DOF for those parameters is 6.5 feet. That's plenty narrow to get the subject to pop away from the background. For comparison, at f/2.8 the DOF is 4.6 feet at 25 yards. Therefore, the bigger benefit is having IS.

For action stuff like the horses, you're gonna want a nice fast shutter speed, true, but in daylight at f/4 you're already going to be in the 1/1600 range.

vote-for2vote-against

@seanbon008: It's an eternal debate, but myself, I find that the DoF gets irritatingly thin on such a telephoto so I'm rarely actually wide open. IS is pretty huge at 200, and while one f-stop is nothing to shake a stick at, I'm usually more comfortable increasing the ISO one notch to use f/4 than 2-3 to get the shutter speed up to 1/300" (though you'd get a "free" one opening up to 2.8).

Also, you want to get a 70-200L and then destroy that IQ with a TC?

PS: Neither 70-200 has particularly creamy OoF highlights (wasn't really designed as a portrait lens), and the difference in its character from the f/2.8 to the f/4 is negligable