Search
-
Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
-
Re: Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
-
Re: Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
I have owned both the f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS lenses. I still have the f/4, it suits my needs better as I do not shoot much in low light. Both are excellent zooms, very sharp. I believe that some folks get the f/2.8 as much for status as any other reason, when if they analyzed their needs the f/4 would be perfect for them.… -
Re: Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
In a nutshell, if you really really need the low light capabilities of the 2.8, get that one. I borrowed the 2.8 for about a month. Great lens, but a little heavy to be carrying around. Larger around too; I wasn't comfortable hauling it a few hours at a time. I later bought the f/4. It's lighter, I can't tell the… -
Re: Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
I have owned all of the 70-200 models except the f/2.8 non-IS. All were very impressive in their performance when I did my job right. I sold them and, in retrospect, regret selling the f/4 IS most of all, for it's weight and size and slightly better IS. I think unless you're getting paid, the f/2.8 is way too large to… -
Re: Canon 70 - 200 IS -- 2.8 or 4?
I have had both as well. An f4 w/o IS and a f2.8 with IS. Both work extremely well in good light/sunlight Both are fast to focus, sharp wide open and outstanding lenses. I bought the 2.8 for poorly lit night HS football games and sold the f4 because its a lot of money to keep both. If I had both still today, I might just…
6 results