70-200 f4 IS vs. 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS

G

Gene Sung

Veteran
Which lens would you guys choose for filming surfing and wildlife closeups, mostly during the daytime.

Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs. Canon 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS

I'm thinking this lens will be mostly used on a tripod for video. IS would be nice for stills, but I'm mostly a video guy.

The f4 has IS, and the 2.8 non-IS is one stop faster. The f4 is smaller and they're both similar in price.

I am planning on using a 2x Teleconverter with it (2 stop light loss), but I figure even the f4 x 2 = f8 is fine for daylight surf filming.

This is a tough choice for me. Any feedback would be a big help.

Also, any of you guys who have the I.S. version of the lens, does the IS take out the micro-jitters on a TRIPOD? I briefly tested this with a 70-200 IS lens, and it seemed to take out the Microjitters, but I only messed with it for a minute. Can anyone verify this?

Thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:
Yea this is a tough one. I was going through the exact same dilemma. I considered all four versions of the 70-200L and just ended up breaking down and went for the 2.8 IS. You absolutely want IS at these long focal lengths, for video as well as stills. The IS totally resolves some of the itty bitty jitters, handheld or tripod.
You really should be debating the F4 IS or F2.8 IS. Eat potatoes for a couple weeks and save up your pennies for the 2.8. That's my two pennies ;) Don't forget though that the 2.8 weighs double as much as the 4. I still think however, the heavier model is manageable for handheld.
 
There's no way I'd use a lens that long with the 7D without IS.

I'm always hawking my video's, here's one with both the f4 and f2.8 70-200, but both also have IS. I also used the 2x converter, with IS on and only on the tripod.

 
Hey Davidpula and ChuckS. Do you guys have the newest 70-200 f2.8 IS V2? The one that cost $2500?? Or do you guys have the first generation f2.8 IS? I think I might be able to swing the V1 because it's about $700 cheaper.
 
Well, in my own opinion, I prefer Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I got it for free from a friend, I was hesitant at first, but when I saw the outcome, I thought it was the best I ever had for wildlife scenes! Just sharing.... :)
 
Another vote for the f/4 IS here. Many consider it the sharpest of the four offerings (prior to V2 of the f/2.8 IS). I haven't seen a sharpness comparison between those two.
 
Yeah... this is a tough choice for sure. I read the very thorough Photozone.de reviews of all the incarnations of the 70-200. And he said that the F4 IS is optically the best tele-zoom Canon has ever made.

However, the V2 of the f2.8 comes very, very close optically. But dang, paying an extra $1400 for 1 stop of light. Not sure if that weights out. But wow... it's tempting for sure since we are all suckers for speed.
 
gene_can_sing said:
Hey Davidpula and ChuckS. Do you guys have the newest 70-200 f2.8 IS V2? The one that cost $2500?? Or do you guys have the first generation f2.8 IS? I think I might be able to swing the V1 because it's about $700 cheaper.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the two lenses I used were the EF-S f/4-5.6 55-250 [$250] and one of the Vets let me borrow his EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens [$2499]

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is a very nice lens. The IS was great, focus and zoom were very smooth. A bit heavy but very smooth.

In bright sunlight I think its hard to tell the shots from the $250 55-250 and the ones shot with $2499 EF 70-200. I use the 55-250 and like it a lot.
 
I was at the same dilemma. If you are a photographer, go 2.8. If you (like me) are a filmer and sometimes shoot photos AND consider value/money, I recommend f4&IS.

The 2.8 is the better lens hands down, but with IS very expensive. It is also very heavy and uses considerable more bag-space.

The f4 is a great lens and focussing f4 at 150-200mm is a project in itself. The DOF will be shallow enough through the focal length. If I need more/less I use my 85/1.4. But for most shots the f4 will be plenty shallow. And IS is a must with this lens when filming without tripod or with a weak one. Even in photography IS helps and basically levels out the advantage of the 2.8.
 
Jordan_S said:
Another vote for the f/4 IS here. Many consider it the sharpest of the four offerings (prior to V2 of the f/2.8 IS). I haven't seen a sharpness comparison between those two.
Click to expand...

I assume the f/4 IS and non IS have the same glass and are equal in sharpness. For anything important I use camera support so non IS should be ok. The 2.8 is nice but since most of what I need it for is full daylight, at half the weight to drag around and half the price the f4 has the edge. I had no idea this lens was considered one of Canons sharpest lenses which is good news.
 
Jordan_S said:
You have assumed wrongly. The f/4 IS lens has more glass and is sharper.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up. I got the specs from Canon and they are completely different lens construction.

Here are the specs/

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM



Specifications

clip_image001.gif

Lens
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture
70 - 200mm f/4
Lens Construction
20 elements in 15 groups
Diagonal Angle of View
34°- 12°(with full-frame cameras)
Focus Adjustment
AF with full-time manual
Closest Focusing Distance
3.94 ft. / 1.2m
Zoom System
7-group helical zoom (rotational angle: 72°)
Filter Size
67mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.0 x 6.8 in./76 x 172mm
26.8 oz./760g (lens only)




EF 70-200mm f/4L USM




Specifications

clip_image001.gif

Lens
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture
70-200mm 1:4.0
Lens Construction
16 elements in 13 groups
Diagonal Angle of View
34° - 12°
Focus Adjustment
Inner focusing system with USM
Closest Focusing Distance
1.2m / 3.9 ft.
Zoom System
Rotating Type
Filter Size
67mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.0" x 6.8", 25 oz. / 76mm x 172mm, 705g

My main application is HD and still work comes second, so I may not see as much difference between the two lenses as a dedicated still photographer. I assume again.
 
Last edited:
After reading what has already been said, I'm thinking F4 IS vs. F2.8 IS (for video). And also, I have a related question:

In practicality, how much of a difference does 1 stop make? I know it lets in 2x as much light and you can get a bit shallower DOF, but at what point does the 2.8 have a clear advantage over an f4? At around sunset? Or for sports? How much shallower DOF can you get with 1 stop (percentage wise)?

But I'm assuming the 1 stop is more of an advantage for stills photography because that also represents 2x the shutter speeds. Since we're shooting video, the shutter speeds are essentially locked (50,60, 125 depending on FPS).

I suppose you can gain by the 1 stop loss in aperture by doubling the ISO, but then you have more grain. I suppose it's fine at around 100-200 ISO, but after that it's grain city.

Am I correct in my assumption? Or does it sound like I'm a cheapo and just trying to save a buck and avoid paying the extra $1400 for the f2.8 IS ($1100 f4 IS vs $2500 f2.8 IS)? LOL.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
[...]My main application is HD and still work comes second, so I may not see as much difference between the two lenses as a dedicated still photographer. I assume again.
Click to expand...

In video less sharp can be advantageous in avoiding aliasing.

I mostly use the f/4 IS for stills. I loved the non-IS but this IS lens...well, it just brings a tear to my eye thinking about her. Please excuse me.
 
gene_can_sing said:
[...]In practicality, how much of a difference does 1 stop make? I know it lets in 2x as much light and you can get a bit shallower DOF, but at what point does the 2.8 have a clear advantage over an f4? At around sunset? Or for sports?[...]
Click to expand...

Indoor versus outdoor.
 
the only canon lens with a great IS system for video is the 100mm 2.8 macro with the new IS system.

All the rest arent really nearly as beneficial, and until this new system trickles down to other lenses, no way id waste my money on the still IS, if your planning for video.

If your on a good fluid head anyway, there is little or need for it. Id def go for the extra speed. more bokeh
 
Sorry jonE5, I respectfully disagree. Although the IS for these lenses may have been designed for stills use it is very effective at removing the "shakes" that you get with any lens that isn't IS. Even on a tripod if you even touch this lens at 200 mm you'll see the vibration without IS.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the new IS, I haven't seen it, but the IS on the current Canon lenses has saved a lot more of my shots than its messed up.

Again I hawk, but this video was shot completely hand held, with a little support from a bungee cord, from a helicopter traveling at almost 100 mph:

 
jonE5 said:
the only canon lens with a great IS system for video is the 100mm 2.8 macro with the new IS system.

All the rest arent really nearly as beneficial, and until this new system trickles down to other lenses, no way id waste my money on the still IS, if your planning for video.

If your on a good fluid head anyway, there is little or need for it. Id def go for the extra speed. more bokeh
Click to expand...



Nah the F4 IS is just fine and works perfect hand held. Actually for hand held the weight of the 2.8 starts to get to you pretty quick, specially on a rig with FF and stuff. I have the 2.8 IS II and the F4 IS and I still use the F4 more then 75% of the time due to the weight difference. I was planning on selling the F4 after I got the new 2.8 but I am rethinking that now.
 
Last edited:
I have the f2.8 IS II and you'd have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. I shoot video and stills handheld with it, and the IS is most definitely beneficial. Is it "optimized" for video? No. But it does make for a higher percentage of usable handheld shots than if I didn't have it or use it.
 
Yeah... I think I'm just going to bite the bullet and spend a small fortune and get the 70-200 F2.8 IS 2.

I figure since I'm using it with the 2x Teleconverter, shooting at an f5.6 is doable but f8 may be pushing the line a bit.

Cry now, Smile later....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top