IS or faster glass?

Jet Jaguar

I'm looking to add a telephoto zoom for my XSi to round out my travel kit. Primary use would be outdoor, "touristy" kind of stuff. As much as I would like the Cannon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, it's just a bit more than I want to spend. I can, however, swing the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM or the EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM.

So the question is, should I go with the faster glass and give up IS, or am I better off with a slower lens with IS? I'm currently leaning towards the f/4 IS. I figure IS makes up for the stop it gives up to the f/2.8 and I would be able to hand-hold it in more situations.

Suggestions?

Awais Yaqub

I love to shoot portraits at f/2.8 with great DOF. I think it depends on type of your work.Lets see what users of both have to say about this.

ziggy53

Jet Jaguar wrote:

I'm looking to add a telephoto zoom for my XSi to round out my travel kit. Primary use would be outdoor, "touristy" kind of stuff. As much as I would like the Cannon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, it's just a bit more than I want to spend. I can, however, swing the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM or the EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM.

So the question is, should I go with the faster glass and give up IS, or am I better off with a slower lens with IS? I'm currently leaning towards the f/4 IS. I figure IS makes up for the stop it gives up to the f/2.8 and I would be able to hand-hold it in more situations.

Suggestions?

Jet Jaguar,

Welcome to the Digital Grin.

My current travel kit includes the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM so I would say "yes" it's a great lens for 'outdoor, "touristy" kind of stuff.'

The IS doesn't really completely negate the difference between this lens and the f2.8 versions, because if you need f2.8 for either moving subjects or bokeh control the IS doesn't necessarily help.

I do feel the F4 IS version is a great combination of light weight and utility and so it stands on its own and the feature set is very desirable for a travel kit. For what I do and how I shoot, it goes with me everywhere.

Jet Jaguar

Thanks for the input. I know I'd be losing some DOF/bokeh control with the f/4, but I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for portraits and I'll be upgrading the kit lens with (probably) the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM so I'm covered there.

ziggy53

Jet Jaguar wrote:

Thanks for the input. I know I'd be losing some DOF/bokeh control with the f/4, but I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for portraits and I'll be upgrading the kit lens with (probably) the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM so I'm covered there.

You're getting very close to what I use:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=859973&postcount=2

DJ-S1

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and absolutely love it. That said, I don't consider it a walk-around, touristy lens. For me 70mm (x1.6) is too much zoom for that kind of thing. I use the 24-105 f/4 IS for that purpose, and the 70-200 for sports and portraits.

Just chucking in my 2 cents -

faust0matic

I've only had one IS lens and in low light it's not as good as my faster lenses. I recently sold it and a few other items and upgraded everything to L glass (except for the 50mm f/1.4). I've been very happy with the faster lenses and I don't miss IS. The only lens I currently own that I will eventually trade for an IS version is the 80-200 f/2.8 L. Sooner or later I'd like to get a used 70-200 IS f/2.8 L. It's more because of the weight and size, which makes it tough to hold steady, than any issue with getting a low light shot. I'd just like to be able to get the shot in 2-3 frames rather than 10-15 frames.

I guess it really depends on what you plan on doing with it. If you don't need f/2.8, then I'd say go for the f/4 IS. Personally, I'd grab the f/2.8 before the f/4, but like I said, I shoot at night or in low light situations a lot. And I really like the DOF on the 80-200 L.

gus

I have an 24-105 f4 IS & can only compare your question against my faster lenses ...the ever so elcheapo 50 f1.8 & the rather expensive 135 f2. I use them all & the faster lenses ( for me) are far better. Also knowing they its hard to compare them as they are 2 different methods for want of a better phrase

Photoskipper

Give me the choice, I will take the IS.
After using the 24-105 IS and the 70-200 F2.8 IS, I push the low light photography to further. I did not pull out my flash gun in my occassions. Setting it at ISO 640, at F4 with IS on and shuttle speed at 1/10 seconds, you may almost shoot anything you like at dim light.

Just got the 17-40 F4 with IS, I screwed up so many shoots due to the slow shutter speed. may be I need to play with the 17-40 for another week in order to have fairer comments.

I vote for the 70-200 F4 IS but better to get the F2.8 IS if you can throw in some more.

Cameron

Another major difference that has been hinted at is the difference in weight between the different versions. If you're wanting an easy to carry lens, the F4 IS version is it. Here's the weight difference:

F4 IS: 1.7 lbs
F2.8: 2.9 lbs
F2.8 IS: 3.24 lbs

davev

If you're going to use this lens outdoors in good light, you don't need a super fast lens or i.s.
I have a ton of lens, some "L", some consumer grade, some 3rd party. They all work well as
long as you don't try to make it do something that it, or you can't.

If you're going to shooting in lower light and using a tripod, you don't need i.s.
In fact you'll turn the i.s. off on the tripod. Some of the canon lenses say that you can leave it on
when mounted to a tripod. Don't believe it. I've tried it, it doesn't work.

One of the first lenses that I bought was a Canon 70-200 F4 (non i.s.)
To this day, it was probably the sharpest lens that I have owned, (excluding my 300 f2.8)
but at the time, it didn't fit with my "style" or what I was shooting, so I sold it.

If you want good control of bokeh, get the F2.8, although the bokeh on the f4 is very nice also.

My suggestion, go to a camera store and try the f4, the f4 with i.s., and the f2.8.
With the newer camera's, and the ability to bump up the iso's, other than for the bokeh,
I'm not so sure that the super fast lenses are needed. (for us non pros)

Photoskipper

CSwinton wrote:

Another major difference that has been hinted at is the difference in weight between the different versions. If you're wanting an easy to carry lens, the F4 IS version is it. Here's the weight difference:

F4 IS: 1.7 lbs
F2.8: 2.9 lbs
F2.8 IS: 3.24 lbs

I totally agree with CSwinton, the weight is an important consideration. Just feel that F4 IS may be a better match with XSi as the weight between the lens and body are more well balance. Futhermore, if the light is good, we use smaller aperture and there will not be a matter of either 2.8 or 4.
Good thing of getting the 2.8 is that you can have a real long tele lens at a cheaper price by adding a 1.4X or 2X TC. For the XSi, you will get either 450mm with 1.4X at F4 or 640 mm with 2X at F5.6.

faust0matic

As far as weight is concerned, the battery grip does help balance it out somewhat. If you're a DIY kind of person, you could also get several lengths of 1/4-20 bolts and some lead weights to thread into the tripod mount and make a counterbalance. Sort of a mini-stedi-cam. The longer the bolt, the less weight you would need.

silverstangs

Jet Jaguar wrote:

I'm looking to add a telephoto zoom for my XSi to round out my travel kit. Primary use would be outdoor, "touristy" kind of stuff. As much as I would like the Cannon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, it's just a bit more than I want to spend. I can, however, swing the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM or the EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM.

So the question is, should I go with the faster glass and give up IS, or am I better off with a slower lens with IS? I'm currently leaning towards the f/4 IS. I figure IS makes up for the stop it gives up to the f/2.8 and I would be able to hand-hold it in more situations.

Suggestions?

There are TWO other options for you,
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS $1100 which gives you more telephoto distance, and IS and is nearly as good as the "L" glass. I've used it on occasion, and it's pretty good. I'm actually considering getting on for my parents since they need something small and lightweight and good.


The next is the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS $280 which is new, but designed for the 1.6 crop factor cameras. I have not used this lens yet...

Gary Petersen

Go for the 70-200mm f4 IS. Quite likely the best zoom lens on the planet.