Canon 70-300 IS vs 70-200 f/4 IS vs 70-200 non IS?

[Dextor143]

I have been beating my head for these lenses for a long time. I have tried using the 70-300, it is a good lens but not as sharp as I would have liked. I would like to know what should I buy next? 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. The IS of f/2.8 is out of the equation as I cannot afford that...

I would like to know what do you guys think about 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8. I have read so many articles and forum and it was really hard to decide which one to put my fingers on. I mean one site says you need the IS and the other says you dont? Can i get some nice tips and ideas. I will really appreciate that.

Thanks

 

[romanaz]

I have been beating my head for these lenses for a long time. I have tried using the 70-300, it is a good lens but not as sharp as I would have liked. I would like to know what should I buy next? 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. The IS of f/2.8 is out of the equation as I cannot afford that...

I would like to know what do you guys think about 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8. I have read so many articles and forum and it was really hard to decide which one to put my fingers on. I mean one site says you need the IS and the other says you dont? Can i get some nice tips and ideas. I will really appreciate that.

Thanks

What are you going to shoot with the lens? If you give us some ideas on that, I'm sure a few forum members can give you ideas on what is better.

Example : I'm planning on shooting sports, and fast action stuff... so IS is useless to me in most cases, but I need a faster aperture.. so my next lens is probably the 200mm f/2.8L lens.

The f/4 IS is nice because its supposed to be sharp as anything and have a 3 stop IS system (i think?) so that should be good for portraits and such.

 

[Kronie]

It depends on if you need a 70-200 2.8 lens or not.

For me its a no brainer. 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you need f/2.8, you can always get a third-party manufacturer lens. Otherwise, the 70-200 f/4 non-IS lens has the best bang for the buck. It's lighter, it's relatively inexpensive, has excellent optics and built quality. The only flaw is that it's `slow.'

 

[localghost]

f4 IS!

a lot better to lug around, sharp as can be, and at 200mm you'll really want IS.

get a 80 1.8, 135 2.0 or 80-200 2.8 later (80-200 was sold before the 70-200, slower but still good AF, sharper at 2.8, about 400 USD for a good copy).

I use a 70-200 I at work, and often try to avoid 2.8 because it’s a little soft; have a 80-200 myself and miss IS a LOT; don’t carry any of them for a full day unless I have to.

 

[NikNakPaddyMac]

I actually sold my IS 2.8 recently, just too darn heavy. Fab quality but too big. The F4 gives fab results if you know what you are doing with it.

-----------------------
http://www.justinhall.co.uk

 

[Dextor143]

Thanks guys for your replies..

I am mainly thinking about doing shooting outside like once in a while may be wildlife, sports and etc.

I need some with like multi purpose

The lens I have right now is

canon 100mm f/2.8
canon 18-55 f/4.5-5.6

I want to buy a telephoto and wide angle to complete the set also wants a good everyday lens..

thanks again.

 

[romanaz]

Thanks guys for your replies..

I am mainly thinking about doing shooting outside like once in a while may be wildlife, sports and etc.

I need some with like multi purpose

The lens I have right now is

canon 100mm f/2.8
canon 18-55 f/4.5-5.6

I want to buy a telephoto and wide angle to complete the set also wants a good everyday lens..

thanks again.

200mm is going to be short for all but the bigger wildlife, or really close animals... and for sports, even outdoors, 2.8 is a big want. That extra stop of light will make life easier.