Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2014 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

badlydrawnboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

I'm about to buy either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II IS or the non-IS version. I'll be using it almost exclusively for photographing my 2.5 year old daughter, who rarely stops moving. It doesn't seem like IS would be helpful in those situations, and with the extra weight and cost I'm wondering if the non-IS version might be a better choice?

Then again, I imagine as my daughter gets older there will be more moments when she does stop for a few seconds (!!) and I'm shooting a candid at 200mm and the IS would come in very handy.

Would love to hear from those of you who've owned both. Thanks.

Mar 22, 2014 at 11:56 PM

AnthonyRay
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

badlydrawnboy wrote:
I'm about to buy either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II IS or the non-IS version. I'll be using it almost exclusively for photographing my 2.5 year old daughter, who rarely stops moving. It doesn't seem like IS would be helpful in those situations, and with the extra weight and cost I'm wondering if the non-IS version might be a better choice?

Then again, I imagine as my daughter gets older there will be more moments when she does stop for a few seconds (!!) and I'm shooting a candid at 200mm and the IS would come in very handy.

Would love...Show more →

I can't imagine when IS would be handy if not for that. IS won't freeze a subject if you're having to shoot at a lower shutter speed. But it will allow you to shoot at a lower shutter speed without lens blur (not subject blur). It allows you to pan, and generally follow the action. It's really for handheld use, which I imagine is what you'll be doing. I suppose you could more consider it an insurance policy for any lighting condition - and I sure can't think of a situation where you'd ever turn it off.

I haven't shot a non IS 70-200, (well an f4 a looong time ago - but don't remember much) but I've shot enough 135/200/300/500 without to know having a tripod was pretty darned handy once I went over 135. Unless of course you know you're going to have a fast enough shutter speed and good light. My handling prowess has slipped as I've gotten older too - or really more to the fact I've gotten sloppier with IS.

Yes, an f2.8 IS weighs about 3lbs. You don't say what you're shooting with? If you're shooting FF, you can certainly consider an f4 IS, save weight and still have a fast lens in low light. Because, you're really not going to be shooting much at f2.8 except at distance, the DOF will be too shallow. She's moving around a lot, yes?

If you throw a 600EX into the mix, you'll be able to freeze her in most any situation, indoors or out.

You also don't say what else you have lens-wise - and where you'll be shooting her. I assume you know if you're on a crop sensor you're already talking playground and beyond - unless you've got an amazing huge living room!

[edit] BTW, I own the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and love it. It's one of my sharpest and nicest lenses. It compares with my red rings. If you're looking to save money, you might consider it - and especially if you're on a crop think about the 50-150 which is an amazing lens.

Edited on Mar 23, 2014 at 12:47 AM · View previous versions

Mar 23, 2014 at 12:36 AM

Kathy White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

I've owned both. Those are actually the only 2 versions of the 70 200 I've had. I loved the non IS. I got great pics, but I had to watch how I used it and if I couldn't keep the shutter fast I had to use a monopod. I had a friend with the 2.8 IS V1 and my pictures IQ were much better than hers so I skipped that version entirely. .

I've had the IS II version now for 4 years and would never consider going back. I use it more than any other lens I own and it's my main portrait lens. The IS works great and IMHO it was worth every cent of the upgrade. Go with it. You'll love it.

Below is a portrait of my 7 year old granddaughter. I've posted it on here before so it was handy, but it and most of my portraits of one subject, I shoot at 2.8. I only step down when I have to for depth of field. I am sure it is all preference but even for the gkids playing I like the blur and separation of 2.8.


	© PCKit 2013

Edited on Mar 23, 2014 at 01:15 AM · View previous versions

Mar 23, 2014 at 12:38 AM

Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Kathy White wrote:
I had a friend with the 2.8 IS V1 and my pictures IQ were much better than hers so I skipped that version entirely. .

I use a 2.8 IS V1, and I'm pretty happy with the image quality so I'm curious what I'm really missing.

Did you try your friends lens on your cam, or are you just comparing your shots to hers....

Mar 23, 2014 at 01:13 AM

Kathy White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Shutterbug2006 wrote:
I use a 2.8 IS V1, and I'm pretty happy with the image quality so I'm curious what I'm really missing.

Did you try your friends lens on your cam, or are you just comparing your shots to hers....

Yes, we each tried both on our 5d2's. Maybe it was just her lens
Or maybe my non is copy was exceptional. I don't know. Just that
I liked mine better.

Mar 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM

15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

I got a non-IS f/2.8 a few years ago for almost exactly the same reason - pics of junior. I got it because i couldn't afford the IS version, and i have to say i have been more than pleased with it. BUT, there are fairly frequently occasions where i could use IS so if you have the money i would recommend the IS version.

Mar 23, 2014 at 01:45 AM

badlydrawnboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

AnthonyRay wrote:
I can't imagine when IS would be handy if not for that. IS won't freeze a subject if you're having to shoot at a lower shutter speed. But it will allow you to shoot at a lower shutter speed without lens blur (not subject blur). It allows you to pan, and generally follow the action. It's really for handheld use, which I imagine is what you'll be doing. I suppose you could more consider it an insurance policy for any lighting condition - and I sure can't think of a situation where you'd ever turn it off.

I haven't shot a...Show more →

Thanks. Right now I also have the 24-70 II (love it, stays on my camera 80% of the time), Sigma 35 Art (also incredible), Sigma 85/1.4, and the 135L. I like the 85 and 135, but after using the 24-70 I think I'd prefer the flexibility and convenience of the 70-200 to having both of the primes. So I plan to sell them, keep the 35 and get a 70-200.

Thanks for the tip on the Sigma 70-200; I had forgotten about that. I'll check it out.

Mar 23, 2014 at 02:28 AM

johnctharp
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Mostly, if you can afford the 70-200/2.8L IS II, get it. It's the sharpest wide-open throughout it's range, fastest focusing lens of it's class, which brings you the greatest flexibility in your photography. From DxOMark:

I can understand wanting to pick a less costly alternative- that's the situation I'm in- but like the 24-70/2.8L II that you already own, there is no better lens. The Canon's only fault is that it's white

Mar 23, 2014 at 02:48 AM

Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

johnctharp wrote:
The Canon's only fault is that it's white

.

Indeed. Actually, it'd be nice to have the option for one in black.

Mar 23, 2014 at 03:02 AM

sb in ak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Both great lenses. Get the IS II if you can afford it. Otherwise get the non-IS.

Mar 23, 2014 at 03:28 AM

Tapeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

I have owned all three and would recommend in order: #1 Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, #2 Canon f2.8L non IS, #3 Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS I.

There is no downside to getting #1. It is worth the money.

Unless you are feeble and need an f/4 due to the weight/size.

Mar 23, 2014 at 05:20 AM

runamuck
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Soon, oh so soon you will have lost the bloom of your youth. Once sure and steady hands will begin to tremble and shake. Such is life.

Mar 23, 2014 at 09:05 AM

schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Look twice but, BUY ONCE! Get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, it will be your faithful companion for many years.

Matt

Mar 23, 2014 at 09:20 AM

mikekel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

I've had the non IS for years, shoot hockey & basketball with it, don't miss the IS, but have recently tried the II and would like to upgrade. Buy the best you can afford, but don't count out the non IS.

Mar 23, 2014 at 06:31 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Kathy White wrote:
Yes, we each tried both on our 5d2's. Maybe it was just her lens
Or maybe my non is copy was exceptional. I don't know. Just that
I liked mine better.

Bit of variability in the 70-200 IS v1. I had an excellent copy which was actually pretty decent wide open even at 200mm and was very good at f/3.2. The v2 is sharper wide open and obviously has better IS and mfd, but the biggest difference I found with v2 is that it takes a TC much better, especially a 2x. If you don't use TC's and get a good v1 it's a darn fine lens.

Other option is to look at the new Tamropn 70-200 f/2.8 VC, been hearing very good things about the lens and looks like 95% of the IQ of the v2 at about 60% of the price.

Mar 23, 2014 at 07:15 PM

kiddik
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

The IS on the II is extremely helpful, especially when snapping pics of your kids indoors, I use mine all the time for my little ones, and wouldn't want to be without the über-stabilizer. I can get sharp shots handheld at 200mm in candle-light brightness thanks to this 4-stop IS. I've owned the non-IS before and the new II IS is miles better in every way. I deem it equal to my 400/2.8L IS, regarding uniform sharpness & contrast, it's a mini "super"-tele and takes extenders without breaking a sweat.

Mar 24, 2014 at 06:12 AM

Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Forget the DXo stuff posted above - it's not needed at all when you're evaluating these particular lenses. If you have the cash, then get the IS II version and be done with it. If you'll get the non IS version (like I did 4 years ago) the time will eventually come, when you'll wish you had IS. The 70-200 is an extremely versatille lens and with IS it's even more useful. The non IS offers fantastic quality, the sharpness and color rendition are excellent. But the IS is even sharper, offers the latest and greatest in USM and focusing (will focus faster and more accurately than older non IS) and of course has the IS.

Mar 24, 2014 at 07:46 AM

johnctharp
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Milan Hutera wrote:
Forget the DXo stuff posted above - it's not needed at all when you're evaluating these particular lenses. If you have the cash, then get the IS II version and be done with it. If you'll get the non IS version (like I did 4 years ago) the time will eventually come, when you'll wish you had IS. The 70-200 is an extremely versatille lens and with IS it's even more useful. The non IS offers fantastic quality, the sharpness and color rendition are excellent. But the IS is even sharper, offers the latest and greatest in USM and...Show more →

So we should trust your opinion over test results that back up the kind of images people are actually getting? That's like trusting KRockwell that every lens he ever tests is 'sharp'!

Mar 24, 2014 at 08:05 AM

ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

Owned both. The non-IS is very close to the IS II in sharpness in the mid frame but loses as you go further out to the edges especially on a FF body. Haven't really noticed a big difference in AF speed or accuracy between the two but I don't use the 2x TC where the IS II is supposedly a lot better.

Although the IS won't help much for moving subjects it does help with stabilizing the viewfinder which can help you AF track subjects. I initially got mine so I could go to lower shutter speeds in low light but I find the VF stabilization my favorite thing about it. Especially useful in FL limited situations where you are trying to track smaller subjects in the VF.

Mar 24, 2014 at 08:15 AM

Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Need help choosing between 70-200 IS and non-IS

johnctharp wrote:
That's like trusting KRockwell that every lens he ever tests is 'sharp'!

Ain't that the truth! 'If you want the sharpest XXX lens on the planet today, just get one now.' And similar hyperbole that often doesn't tell the whole truth about a lens.

Mar 24, 2014 at 08:18 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.