Can anyone tell me the Hidalgo prices for the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS, non IS and the 70-200mm 2.8 USM non IS?

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons?

would I be better off with the f4 IS or the 2.8 non IS?

will the regular f4 do?

I plan to shoot outdoors fast cars, karting but I also like doing low light photograhy of photos and some sports as well.

hi vic. check out this almost similar thread...:)

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=2130&highlight=70-200

but what are the prices?
and

how is it in comparison to the f4?

I'll be getting the F4 IS USM...

F4 IS USM is really sharp.....Very very happy with this lens

2 year thread resurrection hehe.

2 year thread resurrection hehe.

Hehe! :)

but i would suggest the 70-200mm 2.8L USM over the f/4 IS, it focuses much faster.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (http://reviews.davidleetong.com/?p=573) << my review... I pick the F/4 version.

go get 2.8 IS :D

I love my f/4 IS... hahahaha... :D

still trying to decide between 4IS or 2.8, price difference not too big between the 2 lenses, main question is more weight, larger aperture and no IS vs IS and portability. decisions, decisions...

70-200 2.8 IS vs 70-200 4 IS - I go for the 2.8 IS only because of the bokeh
70-200 2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200 4 IS - I go for the 4 IS because it's perhaps Canon's sharpest zoom and its IS tech is the latest among the other L's with IS:D

my pick when money is no object:

F2.8 IS > F4 IS > F2.8 > F4

just my 2 cents

Question: what would you pick between the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM and 70-200 f4 L IS USM?? :Grin:

I decided on the 700-200 f4L because of its portability. It can be handheld all throughout the wedding ceremony and reception with no tripod need. We have our own lights so the f4 is hardly a problem and basically I was impressed with its sharpness over the 2.8 specially when handheld.

For my crew, the lighter the faster and more efficient. The f4 easily fits the bag and is slightly heavier than our 17-50 2.8.

I went with the 2.8L. Despite what many say its not as heavy as you think. Sure the 4L IS is light but when it comes to sharpness this is the sharpest of the 4 70-200s i have tried and I have tried them all. Others may have had different experiences. Now do you really need it? well it depends on what you like to shoot. Its great for sports and low light when flash photography is not allowed. :Grin:

@PJ - do you use this on a tripod or handheld? Is the absence of IS noticeable for you (vs F4 IS)? Main use for me will be kids and their school presentations, so am considering relatively fast shutter speed and indoor light capability. Have read others express their view that IS is essential for telephoto w/o a tripod and w/o flash. Are you always at faster than 1/320 to reduce shake? Thanks.

@PJ - do you use this on a tripod or handheld? Is the absence of IS noticeable for you (vs F4 IS)? Main use for me will be kids and their school presentations, so am considering relatively fast shutter speed and indoor light capability. Have read others express their view that IS is essential for telephoto w/o a tripod and w/o flash. Are you always at faster than 1/320 to reduce shake? Thanks.


I am able to shoot at high speeds when shooting handheld but in times when there is not enough light a short boost on my ISO allows me to maintain fast enough shutterspeed to avoid shakes. Or i use a flash. when shooting kids indoors, like in schools, flash photography is normally allowed. However, when it is not possible to handhold a tripod comes in handy.:Grin:

Hehe! :)

but i would suggest the 70-200mm 2.8L USM over the f/4 IS, it focuses much faster.

Yup, it all goes down to your budget and preference...

Thanks for the input PJ

im no pro but ill choose f2.8 IS or 2.8 non is over f4s coz at least you can shoot in low light conditions specially indoor sports or something, i will be getting a f2.8 IS when i get to semi pro level. :)