Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

Ron Cully Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM worth the extra $600+ dollars over the same lens without IS? Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 04:09 PM

jcolwell Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #2 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS It's worth every penny if you want to use it handheld in low light. It's probably not worth it if you use a tripod most of the time. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 04:13 PM

morenoar Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #3 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS I concur. I had the NON IS and loved it. But then I started shooting both in bright day and then later in the afternoon. I started to say "wish I had IS". I will probably get the IS, when I start to get my equipment back. If my shooting requirements had not changed, I would stay with the NON IS, saving a few hundred dollars Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 04:25 PM

Derming Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS If you opt to have the tripod with you all the time IS is not rquired. Between my pod and IS I will "usually" go with IS... Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 04:46 PM

KFG1 Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #5 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS I currently own both the Non-IS and IS versions of this lense. I prefer the Non-IS when shooting sports at high shutter speeds, especially with baseball & football. The lense has fantastic IQ and is actually better then the IS version in this situation. I use my IS version for travel and when shooting non-action shots in low light, this lense excels in these applications. The choice really depends on your style of shooting, both are exceptional lenses. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 05:03 PM

cjjmst Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #6 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Agreed that the non IS has a slightly better IQ. I switched back to the non IS after a short try. IS can be very helpful handheld though... Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 05:16 PM

MSC Online Image Upload: On p.1 #7 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Ron Cully wrote: Is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM worth the extra $600+ dollars over the same lens without IS? Yes, every penny. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 05:42 PM

jdben622 Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #8 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Wouldn't a better debate now be between f4 IS and 2.8 IS? The f4 IS is only $150-200 more new than a decent 2.8 non-IS used, and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. On the other hand, it's easy to come up with quite a long list of advantages of the 4 IS over the 2.8 non. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 06:27 PM

esanchez Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #9 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS I have IS on my 24-105 and its awesome for still objects but if you are shooting in low light and a person or object moves IS doesn't really help at all you still get blur. If you object or person will be moving still with non-IS and high ISO. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 07:52 PM

Areta Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #10 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS jdben622 wrote: and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. 2.8 non IS is a f2.8 lens, 4IS is just f4. It is a big advantage when shooting sports and/or bluring background is your priority. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 08:06 PM

websurfer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS jdben622 wrote: Wouldn't a better debate now be between f4 IS and 2.8 IS? The f4 IS is only $150-200 more new than a decent 2.8 non-IS used, and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. On the other hand, it's easy to come up with quite a long list of advantages of the 4 IS over the 2.8 non. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L can be used for fast action sports - the f/4 IS version doesn´t do the job here. A VERY essential advantage. That´s simply, why f/4 IS is out of question for me. Another advantage is a more precise focusing on Canon 400D / 20D or higher (double amount of light for AF) Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 09:31 PM

RGS65 Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Ditto - worth every penny out at 200mm IMO. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 25, 2007 at 10:48 PM

LDRider Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #13 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS FWIW...I messed around with an IS 300 f/4 this summer and was not impressed....seems like IS is highly overrated for everyday shooting. JMHO.... Joe P Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 12:11 AM

bsteels Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #14 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS I love mine with IS - It's worth every penny for me. 70-200 is a tough range to handhold for me. Ultimately you have to ask yourself what's best for you... I'd try shooting a non-IS at a shop and see what you think. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Canon 10D Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #15 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS This question has been asked numerous times, but I have not seen anyone mention the following, so here you go: It also depend on whether you want to use the lense with a 1.4X TC; if you are and are using it with a 1-series camera, go with the 70-200 2.8 IS. Direct quote from the Canon 1D MKII N Instruction Manual: With the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens (without IS) attached with Extender EF 1.4x or EF 1.4x II, the center AF point will work as a cross-type sensor. Do not use autofocus with the other AF points because they may cause a focusing error. It's the same with all other 1-series cameras, but I am not sure about the recent announced 1D MK III. Hope this helps a little Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 02:11 AM

Mark Jankura Online Buy and Sell: On p.1 #16 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Go with the IS. I had the same question before I bought mine a couple of weeks ago. I don't think I've had a bad shot yet even with a 2x TC at 400mm I can still hand hold at low shutter speeds. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 02:34 AM

stanj Online Image Upload: Off p.1 #17 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS I did the upgrade when the IS model came out and have no regrets. I use it a lot handheld in low light and it's very useful. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 06:24 AM

jdben622 Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #18 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Hmmm. Maybe I'm missing something. With the 2.8 in IS you theoretically get 3 more stops whereas the 4.0 IS gives you 4. If IS is employed, won't the available/useable ISO's and shutter speeds be the same for both lenses? I've used all three lenses, but don't have them all now and have had the 4.0 IS for less than a week. However, I'm not seeing how the 2.8 and 4.0 are not equal with IS utilized. If IS is not utilized, then of course a speed advantage goes to the 2.8. But if the OP is considering the 2.8 IS, then I don't know why the 4.0 IS isn't an option. Hand-held, it's a much easier lens to carry. If IS is not an option for the type of shot, then often even 2.8 is not fast enough, and a 135/2 or 200/1.8 would be used if they were available and provided enough reach. RE: throwing out the background, the 4 IS does a wonderful job and produces a nice, creamy bokeh. I'm enamored with dreamy backgrounds and have enjoyed using the 85/1.2, 135/2, and 200/1.8...all lenses that are renowned for their backgrounds. I'm not sure if the perceived bokeh from the 2.8 is significantly shallower than the 4. The T/C is a good point I hadn't thought of as well as the overall AF speed in low light. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 07:07 AM

gbee Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #19 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS IS is an awesome tool to have when needed. As the 70~200mm is such a versatile lens, IMO having IS is mandatory. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 08:57 AM

digitaljoe Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #20 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Stanj - How is the focussing in low light? Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 09:12 AM

rebelxtnewbie Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #21 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS jdben622 wrote: Hmmm. Maybe I'm missing something. With the 2.8 in IS you theoretically get 3 more stops whereas the 4.0 IS gives you 4. If IS is employed, won't the available/useable ISO's and shutter speeds be the same for both lenses? no you would still have twice the shutter speed with the f2.8 regardless of IS. With 4 stops IS you move into blur due to subject motion instead of camera shake. Example. Light condtion @max ISO allows shutter speeds of 1/250 at f/2.8 at f/4 you need 1/125 (you 1 stop IS still allows for sharp images) if 1/125 @ 2.8 (your 1 stop IS still allows for sharp images) then 1/60 @ 4 (your 2 stop IS still allows for sharp images) 1/60 @2.8 (your 2 stop IS still allows for sharp images) 1/30 @ 4 (your 3 stop IS still allows for sharp images) 1/15 @2.8 (your 3 stop IS still allows for sharp images) 1/6 @4 (your 4 stop IS still allows for sharp images) But at those slower shutters you worry about motion blur! Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 02:11 PM

rebelxtnewbie Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #22 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS jdben622 wrote: Wouldn't a better debate now be between f4 IS and 2.8 IS? The f4 IS is only $150-200 more new than a decent 2.8 non-IS used, and I think you'd be hard- pressed to come up with many advantages of the 2.8 non over the 4 IS. On the other hand, it's easy to come up with quite a long list of advantages of the 4 IS over the 2.8 non. The f/4 & f/2.8 shouldnt be competing lenses. They are for different purposes even though then run about the same price. But if you ask for advantages, the f/2.8 has a major advantage over the f/4...1 full stop of light! Other advantages include better use with a TC (ties in with the aperature difference) and autofocus. Of course the f/4 has a major size advantage for travel as well as the IS. Image quality is really a wash btn the 2. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 05:27 PM

Grant808 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #23 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS The IS version is worth it if or when you shoot in the following conditions: Low-light Indoors Night Windy/gusty for stopped-down landscapes If you don't plan on much of that, or you're willing to carry and use a tripod for the above...then get the non-IS. Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 06:37 PM

John W Carter Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #24 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS im on the edge of buying either the IS or non IS version, so this is all very helpful, thought i must ask is it really much noticable in IQ Edited on Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM Feb 26, 2007 at 06:50 PM

Brutus_B Offline [ X ] p.1 #25 · 70-200 f/2.8l IS or without IS Mark Jankura wrote: Go with the IS. I had the same question before I bought mine a couple of weeks ago. I don't think I've had a bad shot yet even with a 2x TC at 400mm I can still hand hold at low shutter speeds. I own both the IS and non IS version and I dont think I've had a GOOD shot yet with the 2x TC Feb 26, 2007 at 06:57 PM

	FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?