Question for you photography experts

[Spearing Machine]

I have been pondering the idea fora little while now on what the benefits or negatives would be with upgrading from a 70-200F4 IS to a 70-200 F2.8 (non IS). It would for sure help in lower light situations but I am not sure how important the IS really is for my type of shooting. A few of you have a good idea what I mainly shot so I am hoping to get a little or any feedback that you may have. I know it obviously is a little bigger lens but it looks like price wise they are similar and I just don't know if there is enough benefits for me to try it.

[Steve Foss]

I have been pondering the idea fora little while now on what the benefits or negatives would be with upgrading from a 70-200F4 IS to a 70-200 F2.8 (non IS). It would for sure help in lower light situations but I am not sure how important the IS really is for my type of shooting. A few of you have a good idea what I mainly shot so I am hoping to get a little or any feedback that you may have. I know it obviously is a little bigger lens but it looks like price wise they are similar and I just don't know if there is enough benefits for me to try it.

In many situations you'll actually be losing ground if you opt for the f2.8 non IS over the f4 IS.

[Dbl]

Do you shoot indoors often? Low light situations the majority of the time? Do you require high shutter speeds and the most available light you can squeeze out of you shooting?

Unless you shoot low light events and or indoor sports for a large part of your shooting... as Steve says there would be little benefit to that upgrade. The f4 version of this lens is generally regarded as very sharp, you likely can vouch for that. One stop of shutter speed just may not hold much of an advantage for you over the benefits of having IS.

[finnbay]

Ah.....what they said! The key here is, as Dan says, whether you plan on shooting low light inside. Haven't seen you post many basketball games in poorly lit gyms, so unless you think you can get a few great grays after dark, you're probably good where you are.

[Spearing Machine]

Thanks guys for the quick responses!! That is exactly why I love this board, with quick, accurate, and to the point responses. So until the day I can get enough money to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II I will stay with what I got going now. Thanks!!

[OutlawTorn]

Yah, I think you got some good direction from the above. The IS on that lens is fantastic and will gain you more than the one stop of "real" light you'd gain from switching the f4 into f2.8 - isnt the IS on that thing 4 stop?

I would even be so bold as to say you'd be better off with your lens over the 2.8 non-is inside, too - as long as you arent trying to stop motion or get another stop of subject isolation.

Bottom line, as long as your subject is static 4 stop IS will gain you 3 more usable stops than going from f4 to f2.8 will. Plus you dont have to lug that big 2.8 around with you, not to mention the f4 IS is sharper by quite a bit, too.

[Steve Foss]

Bottom line, as long as your subject is static 4 stop IS will gain you 3 more usable stops than going from f4 to f2.8 will. Plus you dont have to lug that big 2.8 around with you, not to mention the f4 IS is sharper by quite a bit, too.

I agree with most of this for sure. As long as your low-light subjects aren't moving a lot and you don't have to freeze that kind of action, in my experience the f4L IS will put you ahead of the non-IS f2.8, just as OT has said. I've shot both of these lenses on the same body, and when I pixel peep, the difference in sharpness is there but is a very small difference and one that didn't show up when I made prints. Of course, there is some variability in quality among different copies of the same lens series.