I have a Canon XTi and looking for a zoom for indoor Hocky Games, Outdoor soccer ect. I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 2.8, or the 70-200 4.0 is.
What is the pros and cons of the 2.8 vs the 4.0 is

Thanks Maddog

There's a nearly identical thread already active in this very forum. Try reading it.

For starters, one full stop. This means you'll be shooting at a higher ISO to achieve a shorter shutter speed, compared to using the f2.8 version. How this affects you is subjective. You may or may not like the increase in noise in the resulting images. Only testing and pixel peeping will give you that answer.

Size is a factor. The f2.8L IS is 3.4" x 7.8" (diameter x length). The f4L IS is 3.0 x 6.8 in. Although this isn't a huge difference in size, you need to determine if you camera bag/case is large enough.

Another factor is weight. The f2.8L IS weighs in at 1.47kg. The f4L IS weighs in at .76kg. That's about half the weight of the f2.8.

Another factor is filter size. The f2.8L IS uses a 77mm diameter thread. The f4L IS specs 67mm. Generally, you want the same filter size on all your lenses. It makes buying filters less costly.

Lastly is optics. Take a look at the MTF curves and decide if they're good enough for you. In most cases, users don't care --they just want the lens in that focal length with those features within their price range.

OK the price of the 2.8 vs the 4.0 IS is about the same.
Say shooting Hockey from the stand, My 75 to 300 IS stops the action enough to leave some blur from the fast moving parts to add to the action. But the camera movement being zoomed in blurs all the player like they are a touch out of focus.

Would the 2.8 at the 200 end be sharper then the 4.0 IS at the 200 end. Seems like the IS would make up for the Aperature differance, But with the 2.8 are you going to still have camera movement blur. When you Zoom all the way in, arn't you risking camera shake more with the 2.8 that the 4.0 IS would stop. With the 2.8 you would be able to get a higher shutter speed to stop the action but will still risk the camera blur.

Have I just confussed everyone including myself.

I quess I'm trying to figure rather I would want a faster F stop or the IS.

Thanks For baring with me Maddog

The true answer is you want both. IS will help reduce camera shake, and can help smooth out panning shots, but otherwise is no help for subject motion. Only a faster aperture and the resulting increase in shutter speed will really help. Unless you want to try lighting the entire venue with a bunch of studio strobes, f/2.8 is as slow as you want to use for indoor action sports.

Unless you have an extremely well-lit venue, f/4 isn't going to work well at all, IS or not; your shutter speed is going to be too slow to freeze the action very well. And you've already stated that even with IS, 200mm is a problem to shoot handheld without camera shake causing problems. Get the 70-200/2.8 L IS, and a decent monopod.

A grand I can drop ( just got the 24-70 2.8) 2 grand for the 2.8 IS is a bit much at this timeYes if I was looking at identical lens I would go with the IS price not being an issue.
Which one will show less camera shake, the 4.0 IS or 2.8 zoomed in at 150-200.
Maddog

There's no cut-and-dried answer to that question; it depends on a combination of your handheld steadiness and what you're shooting, and as such will vary depending on what you're shooting and what you had for breakfast. You may want to hold off buying anything until you can afford the right tool for the job.

The f/2.8 variants will focus faster automatically than the f/4 variants.

Similarly, the f/2.8 variants will focus easier manually than the f/4 variants.

I have made my choice ........

I thank.....

I'm going with the 4.0 IS

The last pics I shot at the Hockey game with my 24-70 2.8 I was getting 1/2000 to 1/1200 from the stands. and 640 at 4.0 ring side shooting close up on there warm up.

So I believe that the 4.0 will still give me fast enough to stop the players. But the main reason is my wife will use this most of the time at soccer games out side ect. She want lug a mono pod or had shoot the Big and Heavy 2.8

I'll keep you updated as to how pleased or unpleased I am with the 4.0 IS

Thanks Maddog

Remember it's not the "2.8" that will be "fast" enough to stop the players. It's the shutter speed. Depending on how fast the players are moving and when you pull the trigger dictates how much blur you will get in relation to shutter speed. I read once where 1/500th of a second will pretty much freeze anything, like the water coming off a surfers board, but this is only a good guideline if you compare how fast surfers surf and the water they surf on explodes in relation to 1/500th of a second. If you try shooting a race car going 200+ MPH without panning, my guess is that you would need a much higher shutter speed to freeze it. (I don't know because at this juncture in photography, I deal with much slower shutters than that most of the time.)

Here is something no one else mentioned also: You can add a 1.4 multiplier and on a full frame camera get 280MM out of that 2.8 70-200 at F4, since you lose one stop with it. So that is something to think about. On a 20D you'll get 1.6(200) + 1.4(320) for a total of 480mm at f4. And I'm not sure but I don't think you lose anything at full length, which means you get 448mm at f4. So you get a 480mm f4 lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. So if you could find a 20D + f2.8 70-200 + 1.4 extender = nice cheap package for action sports shooting.

The other thing that bothers me, since I own that 20-200 2.8 IS, is the weight. There is almost no way to shoot with it free hand. It's too heavy. And if you do find yourself in a situation where you can use it freehand--and you will--you WONT want to for long, unless you have really thick wrists. It just starts to hurt. It's a heavy bitch.

There is another thing not mentioned here: ISO.
You can shoot easily at ISO 800 with your Rebel. A hockeygame outside will then give you very short shutterspeeds at f4...

Got my 70-200 f/4.0 IS yesterday and took it to the game (Hookey) I was able to shoot between 800 and 2000. The f/4.0 worked great easy to hold for the whole game and still fast enough to stop the action. I have never shoot with a 2.8 biut held one at a store for a minute or two. It would have beed rough to shoot for the whole game.
Maddog

Great for you!
and funny for me, as I now realize that for you, hockey means ... on ice (as where I come from - Netherlands - hockey means field hockey. Your sport, we call ice hockey )

Those pixs where not the best I just was trying to show some speed. I am not a pro either first night shooting that lens also.
I believe that with field hockey the lens would be that much better. More light
Maddog