70-200 F/4 IS vs 70-200 F/2.8 NON IS?

I've had my eye on the 2.8 for a while now, but I've been reading good things about the F/4 IS. I do a lot of low light shooting like weddings and bands in dark venues where there is movement.

I'm looking to spend in $1200 range so I'm not looking to go up to the 2.8 IS.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

-Jake
--
God bless

Make sure you get IS. It is really good on the f4 and f2.8. Especially the new f2.8 MkII of the 70-200.

tough call. gotta consider the 2.8 will focus better in low light also. what kind of shutter speeds can you get away with? are you shooting at the long end? 1/60 is ok for freezing people who are not moving much. if that works for you, the 4IS may be a little bit better. If you have to do shots at 1/120 sec or faster to freeze, you are better off with the 2.8. I think in concert venues, even 2.8 may be a little slow honestly, and 4 is just way too slow.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/

Before I got my f4 IS I compared it to the f2.8 IS MK I. The f4 was sharper wide open but the 2.8 got closer as you approached f8. The f4 has one more stop of IS than the f2.8 MK I. So, it is a trade off - one stop faster/less sharp vs one stop more IS/more sharp. From the little testing I did it looked like the additional one stop of IS pretty well made up for the one stop slower f4. I took pictures in the dark parts of the store with both lenses and the f4 with half the shutter speed as the f2.8 were at least as good and sometimes better. Maybe it was a combination of the one additional stop of IS plus being easier to hold steady (1/2 the weight of the f2.8).

If you will be shooting in low light I'd think the f4 with IS would be much better than the f2.8 without IS.

One additional thing to consider - when Canon upgraded the f4 and added IS they also improved the optics. I'd expect they did the same thing with the f2.8 when they added IS but you might want to check. The Digital Picture has a lens comparison tool on their website that allows comparing test charts shot with different lenses, you might want to check it out. Here is the link for comparing the f4 IS and the f2.8 non-IS.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242

kevindar said:

tough call. gotta consider the 2.8 will focus better in low light also.

Click to expand...

This is like the monster that refuses to die. While I haven't tested the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) I did test the 70-200 f/2.8 IS against the 70-200 f/4 IS for this very quality (low light AF ability) and I own the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and have also tested it directly against the 70-200 f/4 IS for low light AF ability. The 70-200 f/4 IS beats the 70-200 f/2.8 IS handily and it even beats the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II by a slight margin.

I know intuitively one would think the f/2.8 versions would have the edge in low light AF ability but my testing showed the f/4 IS could lock onto dark targets that were impossible with the f/2.8 versions and, when the f/2.8 IS II could lock on difficult targets the f/4 IS had slightly more consistently accurate AF precision. This is using a 7D and a 40D with Center Point, One-Shot AF mode.

While I haven't formally tested Servo mode AF, I have shot enough daylight action images of my black dog with both lenses to confidently say the 70-200 f/4 IS has a slight edge over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on daylight action shots (in terms of the precision of the AF tracking of a quickly moving subject approaching the camera). Mind you the difference is small but the f/2.8 lens has no advantage here either. The testing was done at f/4 but the differences would be even more apparent if the f/2.8 lens were shot at f/2.8.

kevindar said:

what kind of shutter speeds can you get away with? are you shooting at the long end? 1/60 is ok for freezing people who are not moving much. if that works for you, the 4IS may be a little bit better. If you have to do shots at 1/120 sec or faster to freeze, you are better off with the 2.8.

Click to expand...

It would be a rare individual who can shoot handheld (standing up) at 200mm and 1/160th second without image stabilization and get pixel-sharp shots. But modern IS allows this easily. On a high pixel density APS-C camera many people will have trouble at 200mm and 1/250th second without assistance from IS. So thye oft repeated adage that IS does not help when shooting moving subjects is not entirely true.

Obviously it won't stop subject motion but camera shake with a telephoto lens can be a big problem, even at shutter speeds that are adequate for stopping many types of moving subjects.

--
Mike Mullen

I am shooting on a full frame, but you are correct, I did not consider the crop factor. Pixel level sharpness on a high density sensor? Flash, or really fast shutter speeds. I have the 4IS, and 2.8IS. Interesting observation regarding low light focusing. Maybe I compare them later tonight.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/

kevindar said:

Pixel level sharpness on a high density sensor? Flash, or really fast shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

Pixel level sharpness on a high pixel density sensor can be achieved with flash or really high shutter speeds but it can also be achieved with slower shutter speeds and IS. The newer generation of Canon's IS is really good at this.

--
Mike Mullen

mmullen said:

I know intuitively one would think the f/2.8 versions would have the edge in low light AF ability but my testing showed the f/4 IS could lock onto dark targets that were impossible with the f/2.8 versions and, when the f/2.8 IS II could lock on difficult targets the f/4 IS had slightly more consistently accurate AF precision. This is using a 7D and a 40D with Center Point, One-Shot AF mode.

Click to expand...

I've never used any of the f/2.8's, but the 70-200/4L IS has uncanny focusing ability so I can well believe this. 7D and 40D here, too.

The only significant question for you to resolve is whether one additional stop of shutter speed in low light with moving subjects is more or less valuable to you than several stops with relatively static subjects when shooting handheld.

Image quality is irrelevant when comparing these lenses.

SirIndyClick said:

I've had my eye on the 2.8 for a while now, but I've been reading good things about the F/4 IS. I do a lot of low light shooting like weddings and bands in dark venues where there is movement.

I'm looking to spend in $1200 range so I'm not looking to go up to the 2.8 IS.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

-Jake
--
God bless

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

tough call, for static stuff the IS will more than make up for lack of f/2.8 but f/2.8 helps low-light AF and if the band is all whipping around IS might just get a steady blur hah

I recall shooting some bands and I think I was using lots of ISO3200 and like f/2 and 1/60th-1/100th or something???

SirIndyClick said:

I've had my eye on the 2.8 for a while now, but I've been reading good things about the F/4 IS. I do a lot of low light shooting like weddings and bands in dark venues where there is movement.

I'm looking to spend in $1200 range so I'm not looking to go up to the 2.8 IS.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

-Jake
--
God bless

Click to expand...

bronxbombers said:

tough call, for static stuff the IS will more than make up for lack of f/2.8 but f/2.8 helps low-light AF

Click to expand...

I know intuitively one would think the f/2.8 versions would have the edge in low light AF ability but my testing showed the f/4 IS could lock onto dark targets that were impossible with the f/2.8 versions and, when the f/2.8 IS II could lock on difficult targets the f/4 IS had slightly more consistently accurate AF precision. This is using a 7D and a 40D with Center Point, One-Shot AF mode.

Do you think any version of the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom can AF better in low light than the 70-200 f/4 IS? If so, why do you believe that?

--
Mike Mullen