Ef 70-200

Dan Carr shoots with the 70-200 f4.  IS doesn't get you a faster shutter speed.  it just protects against camera shake.  So don't factor that into your decision if you are worried about the f4 being slower than the f2.8.  The 2.8 is a very nice piece of glass, but if your body doesn't produce a ton of noise, or if you are going to be shooting outside mostly, the f4 is more than enough AND wont feel like a lead pipe in your pack.

However, if you are looking for an amazing portrait lens that can also go long, the f2.8 is an amazing lens as well that is sharper than almost any other zoom I have seen at f2.8.

I'm looking to get a 70-200 f/4 non IS, I'm curious to see what other people say. threads.

You shouldn't use IS or VR above 1/500 so you'll never use it for ski shots. Save your money and get the f4 non IS.

i myself am looking at the 2.8 non IS cuz I really would like to get more into basketball photography and gyms are the 4th layer of hell when it comes to lighting.  but if you're going to shoot mostly outdoors f4 is more than enough

awesome to hear, thanks.

I agree with pretty much everything everyone else has said. Don't get the 2.8 unless you need to have 2.8, because it is considerably heavier and more expensive. If you're just shooting skiing the f/4 non-IS is all you'll ever really need. Just think of the available light where you will be shooting and how much weight you want to carry, then decide from there. All of them have their advantages, it's just a matter of picking the one that works best for you.

yeah i hear that, i am comming to terms with getting the f4 non-IS though i just feel as though the f2.8 is the best bang for your buck (even considering it's price tag, even used!) so i just feel like it is a better investment. i mean the f2.8 IS is lavish over practical and i've also heard from a number of people that the f2.8 IS is not as sharp as the f2.8...

I wouldn't get too hung up on it, the difference is pretty minimal. 35mm isn't really a great format for sharpness to start with...

Personally I never shoot skiing at 2.8, probably 25% of the time at 4, 50% at 5.6 and 25% 8 or 11 (I have a Nikon 2.8 and pretty much only good when it's bluebird). At 2.8 you really have to nail the focus and don't have a lot of margin for error. F4 is OK but 5.6 works best for me most of the time especially at 150-200mm in terms of getting good focus on the skier but still having the background out of focus. It depends on what's in the background too, how bright the light is, etc but I'm generalising. But anyway, I'm saying if you're thinking you want the 2.8 so that you can shoot at 2.8, think about it because you might not even shoot wide open. Check how the Canon f4 performs at f4 and if it's good quality then I'd really suggest that in terms of the money and weight you'll save.

I know that if Nikon bring out a 70-200 f4 in the next 6 months (which is rumoured to be happening) I'm pretty certain I'll sell my 2.8 and buy that and have money to spare for an old 300mm or something.

word to that, thanks for all the insight guys! I also don't want to give the impression that i am a ski photographer and skiing is all the camera comes out of the bag for, i am a hobbiest for sure and i use my shit all year long for everything from concerts to portraits, to stuff for my job, nature and all that crap, but i do love to shoot skiing...

I actually ran into a guy the other day and got to talking about this zoom lenses, he was an amature snowboard photographer and he said he traded his 70-200 2.8 in for an ef 135 f2 USM and an ef 300mm f4 IS USM and never looked back, he said it was the smartest thing he ever did, i was a bit perplexed at first but after a while it started to make sence... even though the versitility of the 70-200 is absloutly unchallenged by anything else, i still thougt about it. i have a 75-300 and i hate it but when i do use it i find myself shooting at 200mm some times, 300mm more often and also right around 135mm... those two lenses togther if you could find them used is also about 2 g's... just north of a 70-200 f2.8 IS...   what are your thoughts?

On a crop sensor 200mm is plenty unless you're shooting across a valley. 70-200 f4 sounds like exactly what you need. Find a good one used and just shoot it an enjoy it. If you change your mind sell it for the same price you buy it at, no loss.

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, and it's a fucking tank. I hardly ever use it, it spends more time on my desk than even in my camera bag. Unless you have arms like this guy..



You are going to get tired real quick using it. It weighs around.. uh.. 4 fucking pounds. Unless you are going to be inside in low lighting using your 70-200, DO NO BUY THE 2.8. Are you reading this? Should I say it again? Do NOT buy this lens. Hahaha. Yes, there are times (weddings, indoor functions) where my 70-200 has saved my ass and I was so thankful for it. If that's what you plan on shooting, yeah buy it, it will be a good investment. But if you're looking to shoot skiing, get the f4.

Also, I had the 135 f2 for a while and it was an incredible lens. Absolutely amazing. I miss it so much. Although, my 100 2.8 was a very nice replacement.

Anyways, bottom line, what you are looking to buy is a very big investment. I would say just seriously spend some time figuring out what is best for YOU. (But I still say don't get the 2.8, haha)