-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
70-200 f2.8, Does it pay to get IS?
- Thread starter Stewc
- Start date
David Meyer
Member
StewC,
I've been researching this same question for the past several days. I think most will answer that IS will more than pay for itself over the life of the lens. From what I've read, the IS helps quite a bit for low-light, hand-held, static shots - which you might not be able to capture otherwise.
In other words, if you have the money, I don't think you can go wrong. I'm not sure I've ever read a negative comment concerning this lens.
For me, however, that $600 could be better spent elsewhere. That leads to my question. How good is the 70-200L non-IS? It seems to get overshadowed by the IS. And how does the non-IS compare to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 - which also seems to draw rave reviews?
I think it all comes down to one issue - there are too many good choices out there. Surprisingly enough, however, all these alternatives don't seem to be driving down prices ;-)
Sorry to add to the confusion,
Dave
I've been researching this same question for the past several days. I think most will answer that IS will more than pay for itself over the life of the lens. From what I've read, the IS helps quite a bit for low-light, hand-held, static shots - which you might not be able to capture otherwise.
In other words, if you have the money, I don't think you can go wrong. I'm not sure I've ever read a negative comment concerning this lens.
For me, however, that $600 could be better spent elsewhere. That leads to my question. How good is the 70-200L non-IS? It seems to get overshadowed by the IS. And how does the non-IS compare to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 - which also seems to draw rave reviews?
I think it all comes down to one issue - there are too many good choices out there. Surprisingly enough, however, all these alternatives don't seem to be driving down prices ;-)
Sorry to add to the confusion,
Dave
DaShiv
Forum Enthusiast
It depends entirely on what you shoot and why you're willing to spend so much money (and carry so much more weight) for the f/2.8 version instead of the f/4 version.
If you're interested in the f/2.8 just so that you can have fast enough shutter speeds to freeze action (i.e. sports), it's not important at all. Likewise, if you're planning on always shooting in good light and you're using the f/2.8 for its narrow DOF and better bokeh (reputedly), the IS won't be useful either. If you're planning on always using a tripod/monopod, you won't find the IS nearly as useful either.
For just about everything else though, the IS is a godsend. One thing people don't mention often is that it gives you more flexibility to stop down for wider DOF for the situations where you need it. I don't turn the IS off even in good light, because I don't always stop moving to shoot when I'm grabbing long-range candids.
I'm not the world's most careful photographer, and the IS helps correct for flaws in my technique.DaShiv
Walsh_uk
Leading Member
Try this site http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html
the none IS scores more points? I personaly have the Sigma older 70-210 f2.8 APO and have no plans to replace it.
--
Walshy
With the 10d, cant you just crank up the ISO to 400 or 800 with very little noise and the same result as IS by increasing shutter?
Sure you can but what to do when thats not enough to get the shot?
It looks like a beast to me, would think it would be hard to hand hold at slow shutter speeds.
It looks like a beast to me, would think it would be hard to hand hold at slow shutter speeds.
Bryan Carnathan
Senior Member
Definitely! I LOVE IS. It is extremely valuable to me. If your sbujects are not moving much, it is a great advantage. It works for panning also.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Regards,
Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Regards,
Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
darkchylde
Forum Enthusiast
Hi,
So it all depends on your money and your photo style.
I chose the non-IS cause in that distance I mostly do shots of moving objects, so I need the shutter speed anyway.
And a monopod is a lot less money than the IS for all those other shots you need
But thats an ongoing story.
I am very happy with my non IS, still once in a while I am asking myself if I shouldn't upgrade to the IS, just for that one rare shot, that might turn out non-blurred
But as am not earning money with this, I can safely say it's not worth it.
Yet
--
Raimund Rau
The non-IS is as good as, some even say it's slightly sharper.
So it all depends on your money and your photo style.
I chose the non-IS cause in that distance I mostly do shots of moving objects, so I need the shutter speed anyway.
And a monopod is a lot less money than the IS for all those other shots you need
But thats an ongoing story.
I am very happy with my non IS, still once in a while I am asking myself if I shouldn't upgrade to the IS, just for that one rare shot, that might turn out non-blurred
But as am not earning money with this, I can safely say it's not worth it.
Yet
--
Raimund Rau
I am saving for the IS. I have a monopod to help stabalize the lens now but even a mono is restricting when I'm running around trying to get a good shot in low-light conditions.
If you have the extra cash, go for it if you need it.
If you have the extra cash, go for it if you need it.
kbibis
Active member
Well, if that's not good enough.... somebody has forgotten to turn on the lights
There's always a limit guys.... dont come up with rare situtations to justify you spending $$$ of money...
You know what i mean if using a 2.8 and have pumped up the ISO is not good enough, it's just too dark to take the picture-fullstop. IS wouldnt help you getting a great shot either.
A happy IS owner....
Ian Downey
Active member
hi there Raimund,But thats an ongoing story.
I am very happy with my non IS, still once in a while I am asking
myself if I shouldn't upgrade to the IS, just for that one rare
shot, that might turn out non-blurred
But as am not earning money with this, I can safely say it's not
worth it.
Yet
--
Raimund Rau
I take it your not implying from the remark in your penultimate paragraph that all your shots with your non IS 70-200 2.8 turn out blurred.
--
Regards,
Ian
darkchylde
Forum Enthusiast
Hi,
The 70-200 2,8L is the best lens in my arsenal (L and primes only), razor sharp and beautiful contrast/colors.
I was just referring to situations where you have bad light (dull winter days e.g.) and even with high ISO get slow shutter speeds (
--
Raimund Rau
Uh, NO, of course not.
The 70-200 2,8L is the best lens in my arsenal (L and primes only), razor sharp and beautiful contrast/colors.
I was just referring to situations where you have bad light (dull winter days e.g.) and even with high ISO get slow shutter speeds (
--
Raimund Rau
darkchylde
Forum Enthusiast
Who actually has extra cash?
I mean there are soooo many lenses one mostly wants, that extra cash you wanne spend on this lens might be half another lens (nice prime maybe)
Damn, this is an expensive hobby
--
Raimund Rau
Ian Downey
Active member
thanks for reply as I hope to take delivery of my new 70-200 f2.8L non IS today.Uh, NO, of course not.
The 70-200 2,8L is the best lens in my arsenal (L and primes only),
razor sharp and beautiful contrast/colors.
I was just referring to situations where you have bad light (dull
winter days e.g.) and even with high ISO get slow shutter speeds
(
for me) an IS might come in handy
--
Raimund Rau
--
Regards,
Ian
Eugene Finley
Forum Enthusiast
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum