p.1 #1 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
swore i was going to go with the 135L as my only telephoto, but now i'm starting to worry about versatility if it's going to be my only telephoto lens.
tell me about how shoddy the IQ of the 70-200 is so i can save $300
p.1 #4 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I tested out all 3 70-200 f 2.8s from canon as well as the Sigma alternative. If I did not need the IS, I would definitely have gone with it. Go for it, you will not regret it.
p.1 #9 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Here is an idea: do you need a 2.8 zoom if you have the f2? Perhaps consider the 70-200 f4, a brilliant lens in its own right, and save a few coins too. Those lenses should complement each other well for your kit...
p.1 #10 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
i don't have the 135 at this time. i'm trying to decide between the two.
basically i use telephoto lengths pretty sparingly, so i really only want to pay for one telephoto lens. i was going to go with the 135 because of the speed and its reputation, but i'm wondering if the zoom may be a better choice
p.1 #11 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
is the build quality worse than the sealed IS lenses? or is it basically the exact same thing less the useless rubber gasket near the mount?
Believe it is same build, with inferior weather sealing.
p.1 #12 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
If you are going for the flexibility of a zoom lens, you might as well go for the best, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mark II. If the weight and price turn you off, I would suggest to go for the f/4.0 IS version and then you can add the 135mm f/2.0 for the unique look of that special lens.
p.1 #13 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
goosemang wrote:
swore i was going to go with the 135L as my only telephoto, but now i'm starting to worry about versatility if it's going to be my only telephoto lens.
tell me about how shoddy the IQ of the 70-200 is so i can save $300
All of the Canon 70-200mm L zooms produce excellent image quality. The real question might be whether there would be more value for your shooting in getting the f/4 IS version rather than the f/2.8 non-IS version.
I shoot the IS f/4 version frequently - in fact, it might be my most used lens. I also have the 135mm f/2, which is a fine lens, but useful for me in far fewer situations. However, the combination of the f/4 zoom (for excellent image quality, flexibility, reasonable weight/bulk for such a zoom) and the f/2 prime (for certain types of low light and for very narrow DOF) is more useful to me than owning the f/2.8 zoom.
p.1 #17 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
Don't buy it. It's a pain in the a** with slow shutter speeds...
Honestly, when I was in the process of buying it I though I'd use it only ocassionally since I have Sigma 100-300 EX and I was really happy with that lens. Now it sits zipped in that padded case 99% of time and the Canon gets all the use. It's THAT good. The only downside is obviously the lack of IS
p.1 #18 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
I loved my 70-200 f/4 non-IS when I owned it.
I loved my 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS when I owned it.
I loved my magic drainpipe when I owned it.
Now I love my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark 2.
They are all great lenses. Buy one and you won't be sorry.
p.1 #20 · convince me not to buy a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS was my first ever L grade telephoto lens in 2005.
Boy, did I ever have fun with that lens. I loved its colours and bokeh, and although it wasn't quite as sharp as the Pipe, the lens IQ was very good, in fact better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI which I got later as an "upgrade".
For quality in build and performance, and for a relatively reasonable price, get the Pipe or 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.....you are not likely to be disappointed with either lens.
, I spent $2,400 on mine and don't regret it one single bit 
