Camera Labs

Well i would have thought you'd get 2-3 stops max out of a monopod, but just remeber that the Sigma is under half the price of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I think i can live with no IS and a monopod if it means a lens for half the price. Anyway if you want to discuss this further, you should start a new thread in the tripods section.

_________________
Ed


Canon 40D + Grip | Sigma 10-20 EX | 17-85 | Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX II | 50 F/1.8 | 430 EX II + Other Stuff
Flickr
Portfolio - Not recently updated!
Saving for: -

Here's a good thread on our own forum comparing VR/IS vs a Monopod. http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1398

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

As a student, it's hard to get money to buy Lenses. However, I was lucky enough to be in a school which uses canon stuff. Thus, I managed to get loans on my school's 70-200 f2.8. Although it had a fantastic bokeh, I would not buy the 2.8 version, due to its weight. I was at the recent National Day Parade rehearsal, with the borrowed 70-200 f2.8. My hands were aching after 20minutes of free hand shooting! Which made me decide on the f4 version due to its lighter weight. I haven't thought about IS yet.. Also, should i need the f-stops of 2.8, I have my 100mm Macro to cover the low aperture.

Canon EOS 50D | EF-S 17-85 IS USM | EF 50mm f1.8 | EF 100mm Macro | 580EX II | BG E2N

www.flickr.com/photos/p3n9u1n

I have bought the 2.8 non-IS, because it was just that much cheaper than the IS version. The choice was always between the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS because i loooove bokeh. Ideally of course I'd want the IS, you can always turn it off if you want. If I was loaded I'd swap the lens, but this one produces very nice images too. Te weight is not really an issue for my in terms of muscle-ache, but it does make you want IS just that little more. A heavy lens is more difficult to keep still after all. It's not a matter of big concern, there are a lot of other things I could spend my money on before switching the lens for its IS brother.


Just my 2 cents.

_________________
flickr
Canon 5D + 17-40 F4L + 50 F1.4 + 70-200 F2.8L
Velbon Sherpa 200R

Got to this thread a bit late but I own the 70-200L F4 IS and it is awesome!

I opted for the F4 IS version because the 2.8 weighs the proverbial ton and my primary use is out and about in the countryside. I do not want to lug a great weight around for many hours – photography is meant to be pleasurable after all.

Another point to bear in mind is would you actually use F2.8? Most of my shots require depth of field so I generally start at F8 so I would be buying a lot of class for nothing.

One final point. I have the Canon 1.4 teleconverter which turns the lens into a great semi macro. OK your not getting super close with this combo but if you want to capture a butterfly or dragonfly the 100mm is just no good because you have to get to close to the subject – the shot below was taken just over a metre away so the wildlife do not get to worried.

_________________
Canon 40D; Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM; Tamron 17-50 F2.8 XR DiII SP; Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM; Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM; Canon EF Extender 1.4x II
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arborist/

I just thought i'd point out here, that i have a 70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma One, cause i'm a student ) and it's not that heavy at all, i have never once thought about the weight, so if your wondering which lens to go for between the 2.8 and the 4, don't let the weight be a deciding factor, unless your very weak!

_________________
Ed


Canon 40D + Grip | Sigma 10-20 EX | 17-85 | Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX II | 50 F/1.8 | 430 EX II + Other Stuff
Flickr
Portfolio - Not recently updated!
Saving for: -

Machismo aside at 1570g the F2.8 IS weighs considerably more than the F4's weight of 760g.

As I said in my comments, if you intend to use it for extended periods such as all day in the forests/hills I think most people would notice the difference but then again I may just be a very weak tree surgeon!

_________________
Canon 40D; Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM; Tamron 17-50 F2.8 XR DiII SP; Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM; Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM; Canon EF Extender 1.4x II
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arborist/

I bought the 2.8 IS version as I need it for weddings, indoor receptions etc, so I wanted it to be as fast as possible. The weight is not an issue for me, though I do agree it is a heavy lens.

I bought mine mainly for Sharper Photograph's when I go our Photographing Trains. (Nothing less) I bought my Lens for $600 Dollars at B&H Photo. And I love this L Lens. It hardly ever comes off my Camera. This Lens means more to me than anything that I have ever owned. The good thing is. If the Camera where to ever stop working. I can always buy another Camera and still use this Lens.

_________________
Allan Love Jr

Hi Allan, as a slightly off-topic plug, don't forget you can support us by shopping at B&H via our partner stores page!

First thing I personally feel IS Technology is slightly overrated. It will not function as you may thing, a few stops is not as much as you may hope for. It is a lot less compensating but works very, very well.

I shoot in studio, along with portraits out doors with strobes, so I do not need the IS or the extra stops. I like the F/4 version because the contrast is so so good.

The price is unbeatable for the F/4 version, You can get this version if you like and you can always upgrade to the next if you feel it is inadequate; the resale value is great on this lenses. The focal length is tight on this lens so you will need some room to work it, but it works superb as a portrait lens.

Lastly these are all tools and they all work flawlessly. Budget and functionality will decide. I will say be true to yourself, and try to focus on what you need and not what you can get.

www.lawrencejamesphotography.com

_________________
Kung-Fu Flavor

Canon 50D
17-40mm f4L
Canon f4L 70-200mm
50mm f1.8

I have to make a decision between the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 IS.

I like to photograph landscapes mostly which i would be using f/8 - f/14 (guesstimate). I have a nice tripod. And i have a prime lens for low light.

And suggestions between those two? besides $600 in price.

_________________
Canon 40D* Contax Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-85mm f/3.3-4.0 MM, 50 mm 1.8 MKII, Gitzo GT1931

Wishlist: Contax Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 MM, Contax Zeiss 21mm Distagon T*

If you are considering the IS in spite of the cost, that tells me you can probably stretch to get one.

That said, I opted for the "state of the art" version even though I have a decent tripod and use it fairly often for landscapes and long exposures.

The nice thing about the IS is when you are not set-up on a tripod, or don't happen to have one with you...you can still pull off shots like this:





best of luck with your decision!

_________________

Canon XSi/450D | BG-E5 Battery Grip | Canon EF 17-40 f/4L | Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS | Manfrotto 055XPROB | Manfrotto 488RC2

Flickr <--Comments/Favorites welcomed

I would have thought flying birds is one situation where IS doesn't matter so much. You'll need a fast shutter to freeze the motion. IS really comes in when you want to use longer shutter times risking camera shake.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Bought the 70-200 f4 IS. Thought strongly about the 2.8 IS but the price put me off. Between the f4 IS and 2.8 non IS I decided that IS is the way to go.

_________________
Justin
Canon 50D
EF 50mm f1.8, 70-200mm f4L IS USM, 18-55mm IS
430EX speedlight
Photoshop CS4