Which is better for indoor shooting, the 70-200 F/4L USM or the 70-200 F/4L ISO?
1667251
With limited light as often occurs indoors, the IS (image-stabilized) version would likely provide sharper images (of still subjects) when hand-holding the camera. If using a tripod, the IS version will not provide an advantage; perhaps it helps to think of IS like a "hand-held tripod". It is important to keep in mind that IS, while providing a 3-4 "f-stop advantage" in terms of image sharpness, does not actually increase the aperture of your camera. Therefore, IS does not help when trying to freeze the motion of your subjects, e.g., children running around inside the house. For capturing moving subjects indoors, you would probably want a lens with a larger aperture (lower f-stop) such as f1.8 or at the very least f2.8. A larger aperture gathers more light and allows for a faster shutter speed under given lighting conditions, and the faster shutter speed is what freezes a moving subject. I use the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS version) to capture shots of my kids running around and playing outside (generally plenty of light), and it works very well for this. Considering your lighting, subjects, and whether or not you will use a tripod will help with your decision. Personally, for indoor candid shots I use a f/1.8 lens -- I find that Canon's 28 mm f/1.8 (on a crop body such as T3i) is a very good lens for these indoor shots.
1669169
I use Nikon d700 with the same 70-200. Works great for me but then all I use it for is sport shooting. I don't get too aggressive with my equipment. Usually stand and shoot. Not really into jumping around or running with it.
2103644
Iso wont make a difference. You will need to do some math to calculate your "effective F stop". Ne = N(1+M/p)N = f-numberNe = effective f-numberM = magnification = extension from infinity focus / focal lengthp = exit pupil diameter / entrance pupil diameter
1380192
Partially in response to Paula J's answer below, I have had both lenses. The 70-300L is actually sharper in the center than the fixed 300L prime. The 300L prime is sharper on the edges and corners. If you want the F4 aperture at 300mm, then you have to go with the prime. If you don't need this, then newer 70-300L. It is lighter, more compact, has a better image stabilizer and gives you the versatility of a zoom.
736772
try the 24-105mm f/4l, its in a simalar price range and might be better suited, or the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS is probably best
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
1913608
The 6D has a high iSO range and is a great performer in low lighting situations. Together with the IS on the 70-200, you should have no problems.
1784424
No, this is perfect for portraits, unless you have been using a 105mm. Lense is a little bit heavier than if you went with fixed focus, but the 24-70 is just perfect for indoors & the f/2.8 let's you keep you ISO at about 200 & still shoot without flash. WARNING: Don't use lens hood with on-camera flash at less than 45mm. You will get a shadow at the bottom of picture.
1329391
no, i would recommend something around a 70 -200 f/2.8 yuor choice on what you want to spend. i can tell i have a tamron in this and i love ,a little heavy but smoking fast glass , shot my kids sporting events for years , great pics
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
2278163
20mm would be much better for indoor. The 14mm is a great companion anywhere, but the 20mm is a better choice for low light and indoor photography. It's rare that you'll need a wide angle indoors, unless you live in a castle or mansion. My guess is you've asked this question because you want to take photos of people. So get the 20mm.
123475
Good question. The difference is better optics at 1.4f stop, or wide open. If you shoot wide open all the time, then you might want to consider that extra expense. On the other hand, if you shoot occasionally wide open, this lens (400) is great and I have liked shooting with it.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1316303
Having never used the 300 F4 L, I can't compare. For sure you would be giving up one f stop. However, the 70-200 IS L F4 is considered one of the best zooms Canon makes, and I did compare the 70-200L with and without the 1.4 extender. Without the extender on the 70-200L it was close, but at max zoom on the monitor, the 70-300L was sharper and had better color saturation. With the extender, it was no contest, the 70-300L is way better. Hope this helps.
354389
The main reason to get the 17 Mm lens over the kit lens is the 2.8 aperture which is much better for lowlight or blurred background it is also more compact which is great for indoors when I bought my OMD I chose not to purchase the kit lens instead I bought the 17 mm 2.8 and the 14 to 150 zero lens. I have been very happy with this combination for most situations.
406
Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it... » Read More Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. « Show Less
1810953
either the 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L are excellent for that purpose. They are significantly better than the lenses you own. In that focal length they are top of the line.