Hey Guys!

Since I've tried myself at shooting portraits, I would like to get a Canon EF - lens 70 - 200 mm.. However, I can't decide: 2.8 ( = 1700 Euros) or 4 (700 euros). Luckily, I find myself with 700 euros atm, but I wonder - if the 2.8 does make SUCH a big difference for a person such as I (not a professional) I should probably get starting with saving more money

Maybe anyone here has made his own experience and is good with sharing it?

Oh and I just recognized that only the 70 - 200 mm f4 without IS costs about 700 Euros, but the one including IS costs about 1400.. While the 70-200mm f2.8 costs 2.200 euros with IS ... However, I'm pretty confused

This post was edited by elfilien on Aug 29 2009 07:30am

Well after reading all those reviews I have decided that I will never buy the f/4 version.









the whole review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

with 1.4x extender you would get f/4 and with 2x extender you would get f/5.6

I know it cost ALOT! but I believe it's something really worth saving for

As for why the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 is much more expensive than the non IS from what I have heard the IS version is weather sealed and the non IS is not but paying almost twice as much for the IS and weather sealing is not really worth it lol

This post was edited by Futurama on Aug 29 2009 08:32am

so you'ld also never buy the IS version of the 70-200 f2.8? Well, I just don't know what difference it makes, I always use IS at my 18-55 (don't care about batteries), I've never seen a difference.. but maybe at 200mm there is?

wah! I hoped the f/4 would be worth it! now I gotta save money for another year! suck it *gg*

In my opinion it would be worth it, both lenses are worth their price. It's just that a lens with f/2.8 has two or three times the amount of light let into it as opposed to an f/4 lens, meaning you could use it in much darker conditions.

The f/4 would be great for indoors with a flash and outdoors on a sunny day, but you could probably use the f/2.8 inside without a flash and you might be able to shoot at 1/60 still or better.

And umm.. Doesn't IS stand for Image Stabilization? Meaning you could shoot more easily with less chance of blur? I use a Sony and it's in the camera body, not the lens, so I don't know how good it works with Canon's and Nikon's.

This post was edited by kratos on Aug 30 2009 06:15am

You get what you pay for. Its really up to you. Spend more get a better lens. Its cut rather dry and simple. How much patience do you have and what are your standards. Me, I waited and got the 2.8 is. My god do I love that lens...

Well as that review and many other reviews and posts I have read the constant f/2.8 is almost a must if you want to take portraits or action photos indoor and don't forget that f/2.8 also gives you much nicer background blur.
I think with a telephoto lens IS is almost a must At 200mm it would let you take sharp photos at around 1/40s which is impossible with a non IS lens

It's really up to you if you think you must have a lens NOW then you should get the f/4 version but if you are willing to wait and save like 2000 bucks then the f/2.8 is the winner here


You lucky bastard :p

This post was edited by Futurama on Aug 30 2009 08:01am

My Canon 70-200mm F/4 L Zoom is my baby

All matters what you are shooting... F4 and F2.8 is a huge difference.

Do you shoot in low light?

Are you planning to make any money off this?

Do you use tripods/monopods often?

Do you shoot sports?