Motorsports- How often do you use f2.8?

[Chris Clark]

Looking at purchasing a new lens in a month or two. I LOVE my 300 f4L and want to stick with the "L" line, so I narrowed it down to the 70-200f4L and the 70-200f2.8L non-IS. I just can't justify the cash for the IS:(

So I was wondering: How often do you guys actually use the f2.8? Is f4 good enough or should I hold out a little longer for the 2.8?

[Todd Corzett]

For night stuff... endurance races, NHRA, etc. I use f/2.8 quite a bit because there is no choice. I also use f/2.8 when I want to get narrower DOF. Another thing is adding on a 1.4xTC... so you're shooting at f/4 rather than f/5.6. The 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS (my workhorse lens, especially before I got my 500mm) is an awesome lens. The f/4 is, IMO, one of the best values out there (short of the 50mm f/1.8). I would save-up for the f/2.8 non-IS, or try to find a good used copy... but if you need something now the f/4 is a great lens too. Not really an answer for you... but, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a staple of most sports photographer's line-ups. If you think you'd ever want the f/2.8 you should save for it now... rather than selling the f/4 to get the f/2.8 at some point in the future.

-Todd...

[Chris Clark]

Thanks for the reply. I kind of figured that would be the case.

Looks like I'll be saving a little longer:)

[Dennis Murray]

Buy the 2.8. Keep in mind motorsports is not all on the track...the 2.8 makes for great portraits and candids as well by creating the great DOF control.

During the day, 2.8 is overkill on track. At night, it helps.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is also very good. The Canon is better, but if you can find the Sigma second hand then it is a great savings.

[Paul Hansen]

F2.8 over F4.0 - on the 20D, 30D, 1D MII, and maybe some of the other bodies, the F2.8 will give more accurate AF performance due to the wider aperture. Any night events will have you at F2.8 and wishing for F1.8. Shooting head-on shots, the DOF of F2.8 will also nicely blur out the background.

Basically, there is numerous benefits that outweight the slight cost difference between the F4 and F2.8 non-IS.

Cheers

[Jacob Leveton]

I use the 2.8 around 10% of the time. (and about 50% of those events, I will bust out the 50mm). used it this weekend, and was very glad I had the extra stop.

[Jim Sykes]

I use the 2.8 every single time I use the lens for every single shot.

I use it to see a brighter view in the viewfinder and I use it to gain a faster af for all shooting. The extra light the wider aperture allows in the camera will improve AF performance, will allow for more sensors to be more sensitive and will give you a brighter view.

Plus all the other benefits above also are true.

However, I would go for the IS, not because of IS, but simply because its a better lens. I hardly ever use IS, but I do like the 8 bladed aperture instead of the 6 in the non-IS verson which gives a better out of focus look to any point light sources and I like the fact its sealed better as well. That was a real benefit in the dust of Utah this past weekend. As a bonus, you also get IS.

Save for the best, you will never regret it.

[Chris Clark]

However, I would go for the IS, not because of IS, but simply because its a better lens. I hardly ever use IS, but I do like the 8 bladed aperture instead of the 6 in the non-IS verson which gives a better out of focus look to any point light sources and I like the fact its sealed better as well. That was a real benefit in the dust of Utah this past weekend. As a bonus, you also get IS.

Save for the best, you will never regret it.

Thanks for the input everyone.:)

I understand where you are coming from Jim, but in all honesty, I just can't justify the $$$ for the IS, Not being a Pro and earning a living from my "tools". And I'd rather save the difference and buy a better body, and use the XT for paddock/garage work where I don't need uber-fast AF speeds.:)

[Jim Sykes]

Money is better spent on glass than it will be on a better body. Unless you are moving up to a 1 series camera, you wont be getting any great improvement in AF speed and if you are going to a 1 series the $400 you save on the non-IS version will be a drop in the bucket to your new body.

Just my opinion.

[Todd Corzett]

Would I sell my 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS to get the IS version... No. Do I ever use IS... almost never. Would I save-up to buy the IS version rather than the non-IS... Yup.

Like Jimmy said... $400, while it may seem like a lot, is just a drop in the bucket in the long run. Lenses, more than anything else in photography, hold their value. The camera you spent the $400 on now will be $400 less in a month or two... the memory you just spend $200 on will be selling for $50 in a year. My 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS is worth more now than the day I bought it, and almost all of my lenses have barely depreciated at all... compare that to my D30 that I paid $1400 for (now not even worth $300), or my 1D MkII that I bought a little over a year ago for $4000 (now worth maybe $3000).

All that being said, if you NEED the lens now... either suck it up and buy the IS, or get what you can afford now. If you're able to sit on the fence a little while longer, buy what you really want... even if it means shooting with something else for the time being. If you think you don't want the IS version, go with what you want... afterall, we aren't the ones paying for it.

-Todd...

[Chris Clark]

Money is better spent on glass than it will be on a better body. Unless you are moving up to a 1 series camera, you wont be getting any great improvement in AF speed and if you are going to a 1 series the $400 you save on the non-IS version will be a drop in the bucket to your new body.

Just my opinion.

Valid point.:)

Maybe I will save just a little longer for the IS. I do have IS on my 300f4L and do tend to use it on some of my panning shots on Mode2, it has definitely made my pics aTON better than they were. I don't know if thats the "L" glass, the IS, or if I am just getting better. I'd like to think it's a combo of all three.:)

Does anyone use IS at for any of the night shots, or dusk shots? Is it true it can buy you 1 or 2 shutter speeds? Or is that not really applicable to motorsports?

[Jim Sykes]

I dont use the IS for panning. I dont like the way it jumps when it kicks in and often find its kicking in at the wrong time. However, if you have had good luck with it on your other lens, then by all means keep using it. It also sounds like another good reason to hold out as you seem to like the IS feature. I can assure you once you drop $1200 on the non-IS version, and you like to use the IS, you will always wish you spent the extra change on it in the first place.

I do use the IS for stuff in the pits and on the podium at times. It will buy you a stop or two in shutter speeds, but keep in mind that is only for static objects. Anything moving will still require a high enough shutter to keep it from blurring regardless of IS or not.

I tend to use it in the pits because I tend to work quickly and often dont take the time to really sit there and steady myself properly and often the IS will give me just that little bit of extra "steadiness" that I tend to forget about in my technique. That and often I will shoot as low as 1/60 to get blurred effects on the cars, then want to shoot a portrait shot at 200 mm, and with the IS on it again gives me that little extra steadiness when shooting around the slower shutters with longer focal lengths like 200mm.

Is it necessary, no way, but since I have it I do use it for those things. Did I buy it for IS, no, I bought it for the other features I mentioned above.

[Chris Clark]

Thanks Jim.

This place is just FULL of good info.:)