Canon 70-200: is f/2.8 without IS or f/4 with IS better for school plays and general use?
Asked 6/26/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m choosing between two Canon 70-200L lenses: the 70-200mm f/2.8 without image stabilization and the 70-200mm f/4 with IS. I’m a hobbyist using a Canon T3i now, with a possible upgrade later.
Most of my use will be outdoors, but I also want the lens for occasional indoor events like school plays or concerts where flash may not be allowed. I’m trying to understand how much IS really matters compared with the wider f/2.8 aperture.
I can handhold my current stabilized kit lens at fairly slow shutter speeds, but I’m not sure how well that experience translates to a heavier 70-200 without IS. Which option makes more sense for this kind of use, and what tradeoffs should I be considering?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
5
I think I'll start with referring you to a Letter to George. Then I'll repeat another bit of advice that is frequently given here, "buy the best equipment you can afford". If you can afford the 2.8 IS version, that's what you should get.
Since you've ruled out the 2.8 IS, I would seriously consider the extra weight of the f/2.8 non IS compared to the f/4 IS-version. The f/2.8 is almost double the weight of the f/4 IS (1490g vs 760g). The extra weight (and size) might limit when you bring along the bigger lens.
It all boils down to your need/want for a large aperture to create (more) bokeh. For your use cases I would go for the f4 IS, since non of them seems to be for sports or other situations requiring the extra shutter speed from the f/2.8. Remember that the IS in modern Canon lenses give you up to 4 stops, which might be more useful than the 1 stop difference going from f/4 to f/2.8.
Originally by user7271. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7271
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
IS and a wider aperture solve different problems. IS helps reduce blur from your hand movement; f/2.8 helps you use a faster shutter speed, which is what matters when subjects are moving.
For school plays, concerts, or any low-light scene with people in motion, f/2.8 is usually more useful than IS. IS can let you handhold at slower speeds, but it won’t stop motion blur from a moving child on stage.
For mostly outdoor general use, the 70-200mm f/4 IS is a very strong choice. It’s much lighter, easier to carry, and IS is helpful for static or slow-moving subjects. That lighter weight can also make it more likely you’ll actually bring the lens with you.
So the decision is mainly this:
- choose f/2.8 non-IS if low-light action and indoor events matter most
- choose f/4 IS if most shooting is outdoors, travel/general use matters more, and you value lower weight plus stabilization
Your experience handholding a stabilized kit lens does not fully translate to a heavier 70-200 without IS; the larger lens is harder to hold steady.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 more expensive than a 70-200mm f/4, and how do 70-300mm zooms compare to a 200mm prime?
Canon vs Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for weddings: how much does IS matter, and is Canon worth the extra cost?
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS as a walk-around lens for a Canon Rebel XTi
Which matters more on a 70-200mm lens: a faster f/2.8 aperture or image stabilization?
Should I replace my Nikon 55-200 with a budget 70-300 on a D3200?