| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2005 03:25:22 AM · #1 |
Apologies if this has been queried before. I'm researching the 70-200 f/2.8 L, and am wanting more views on whether or not the IS justifies the higher cost. One review said the IS is good enough to allow for 3 less stops when handheld, another says that under available indoor light, the IS is worth it. Any thought on this?
[ edit ]
I'm editing to add that I'm quite keen on portraits, indoor and outdoor, and am thinking the IS would prove worth it for this purpose. If I were more concerned about action shots, I'd reckon scrap the IS. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2005-04-21 03:27:34.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 03:49:07 AM · #2 |
I have the non-IS, and occasionally I do wish I had the IS. As for whether it's worth it, I'm unsure. It is a fair amount more money.
The IS version gives you other advantages, however:
- Circular aperture (nicer bokeh)
- Weather sealing
- Generally newer design (the non-IS is a 1999 design)
Bear in mind IS only works in some scenarios. Mainly to counter hand movement. One-dimensional IS works for panning, for instance motor sports, but two-dimensional IS won't work for the likes of a basketball game, because there's no real motion to counter against.
My friend has the IS version, and he says he uses it nearly all the time.
If I had the choice now, I'd be VERY tempted to go for the IS.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 04:33:49 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
The IS version gives you other advantages, however:
- Circular aperture (nicer bokeh)
|
That is only true if the IS is not turned on. IS totaly ruins any Bokah effects.
Rob, I was at the point a few months ago that you are right now. I chose the non-IS version. I have IS on the 600/4 I own. I never use it. It is a different lens, but still on the 600, for me, it is a total waste. IS will not work well tripod mounted and not many people are about to hand hold an 11LB lens. The 70-200 of course does have hand held capabilities, so you need to make up your own mind based on your needs. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 05:32:34 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
- Weather sealing |
Hrm, I thought all L lenses are weather sealed? Thanks for the responses so far from both of you. I think I'll sleep on this for a few more weeks, at least. The cash difference is significant, especially in Singapore where I'm likely to buy the next lens (in about 3 weeks, I hope :)) Thanks again. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 06:07:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by robgo:
Hrm, I thought all L lenses are weather sealed? |
No, only lenses designed after 1999, I believe. Lenses after that year have weather sealing gaskets, before don't. (Hence my friend's 70-200 IS has black rubber around the silver camera mount and my non-IS doesn't.)
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 06:37:04 AM · #6 |
| I have the IS version, the non IS was never an option for me, I use my lens for birds and for indoor shooting, it´s great for portraits too. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 07:43:23 AM · #7 |
when I bought mine, I had no intention of getting IS, the rep convinced me otherwise and I am extremely happy he did. Aside from the technical reasons, my lens is one year old and I can still sell it for close to the purchase price.
the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM (built after feb 2004) come with IS version 2, which have no issue with tripod mounting and are less battery hungry. This lens is my favorite for all the well known reasons... but I have to say that IS is a powerfull tool.
I am not a very "steady" while holding the camera, and still, I can manage shots a F2.8 200mm 1/10th and they are crisp!!!
so GO FOR IT, it's a stretch money wise...but you will love this system. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 07:51:20 AM · #8 |
That being said, if you get the non-IS you can always upgrade later if you decide you need it (unless you buy everything new, in which case you'll incur some loss).
I got a great deal on an 80-200 f/2.8L so I bought that but will likely upgrade at some point...right now, there's just no need for me to do so.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 08:50:55 AM · #9 |
| I have the 70-200 non IS LENS , Going to sell it and but the IS lens |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 09:38:17 AM · #10 |
I was in the same boat a short time ago, and decided to get the IS. I should have it in a week. I shoot a lot of different things, and it will be nice to have the IS when I need it. But the IS is only half of it for me. The autofocus response and tracking is supposedly faster which will be nice when my little boy starts playing soccer (It's only the 5 year old division, and the field is a lot smaller so 200mm should be fine). I also want to start doing some motocross stuff so the faster the focus the better. The weather/dust proof resistance is also nice, another "nice to have it when you need it" reason.
For me, this is a HUGE purchase. But I figure if I'm going to spend that kind of money on a lens, I might as well spend a bit more and get the better of the two.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 10:02:54 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
I was in the same boat a short time ago, and decided to get the IS. I should have it in a week. I shoot a lot of different things, and it will be nice to have the IS when I need it. But the IS is only half of it for me. The autofocus response and tracking is supposedly faster which will be nice when my little boy starts playing soccer (It's only the 5 year old division, and the field is a lot smaller so 200mm should be fine). I also want to start doing some motocross stuff so the faster the focus the better. The weather/dust proof resistance is also nice, another "nice to have it when you need it" reason.
For me, this is a HUGE purchase. But I figure if I'm going to spend that kind of money on a lens, I might as well spend a bit more and get the better of the two. |
you won't regret it, the USM is rocket fast and the IS is incredible...and don't forget that this lens is known to be one if not THe sharpest lens in all of the zoom range at Canon. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 02:22:20 PM · #12 |
robgo,
You should first ask yourself what you intend to do with the lens, if you need the IS and think the increase in the price is worth it, get it. The IS gives you 3 f stops from what I've read as well. Very helpful for indoors and dim lighting. Plus the lens is 3lbs and can make you shake a bit, but it is not a big deal if their is good light for a fast shutter speed. If you intend to shoot stabilized (mono/tripod)and/or in good light, I don't think you'd benefit from the IS much. If you plan on doing a significant portion of your shooting indoors, in low light settings, or have a problem with handshake, then it might be worth it. If it wasn't $1600 I would have gotten the IS, but I don't need the IS features for A $500-600 price over the non IS (which I just got).
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 02:38:46 PM · #13 |
I needed the range and the light gathering ability of the 70-200/2.8L for High School football games at night. After realizing I would need shutter speeds generally in range of over 250th of a sec anyway and additionally, I'd almost always use a monopod (if not a tripod), saving money on the non-IS version was non-brainer. Secondly, for portraits, I generally have an abundance of light. Therefore, I don't really miss the IS.
If money is no object though, I'd definitely pick up the IS version. |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 02:43:36 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
If money is no object though, I'd definitely pick up the IS version. |
Money is ALWAYS an object. Anyone who says differently should pay more taxes. Thanks for the views on this lens. I'm trying to get loaners where I am and try out for a couple of days before the purchase, but it's certainly been very helpful to hear from all of you on DPC. Thanks again.
-Rob
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 04:20:26 PM · #15 |
I had the EXACT same question so i am glad this was brought up.
Everyone always talks about renting lenses... I am in oslo norway and have checked around at a lot of camera shops and have never found a place to rent anything..
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 04:43:24 PM · #16 |
I had this question a while back. I decided to get the IS for many reason, but the one that bugged me the most was: If i don't get it, everytime i could have used it, i'll go and say, why in the name of Troy's mother didn't i buy the IS.
It cost more, but if you are gonna use the lens often, i think its a good investment. That and also because its a lens that will age very well. YOu'll still be using it a few years from now.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 05:01:41 PM · #17 |
I have the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8.
I was originally considering getting the IS version, but decided not to. These were my reasons:
â€Â¢ the cost compared to benefit (I would use IS occasionally only, probably only under very low light)
â€Â¢ the bokeh is ruined with IS turned on
â€Â¢ the IS adds significant complexity (more can go wrong - I've had error 99 and 1 issues with IS lenses before)
â€Â¢ additional weight (a very minor concern really)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 03:36:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
â€Â¢ the bokeh is ruined with IS turned on
|
You need to explain to me why bokeh is ruined with IS lenses... Do you know what bokeh is? It only "ruins" bokeh if you decide to shoot with faster shutter and a smaller aperture... IS does not mean you have to change your camera settings to something you don't want.
In any case... I have the IS version and have also had the non IS version.
The IS version is superior. Not only does it add IS but it is a better (and different) lense than the non IS version.
It has better optics than the non IS version and will give you better results even with IS turned off. The IS lense has 23 elements vs. 18 on the non IS version.
It has a better weather seal. Yes, they are both weather sealed but the IS version is improved in that dept.
I love this lens as it is unquestionable the best lens I have ever owned. It works just as good on a tripod and the IS works wonders on a monopod.
Follow this link for a review and comparison of the two lenses in question:
EF 70-200 f/2.8 with and without IS Comparison
-are
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:08:32. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 03:38:29 PM · #19 |
With IS turned on there can be vertical lines (introduced by the stabalization mechanism) visible in the bokeh which can be annoying.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 03:43:55 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
With IS turned on there can be vertical lines (introduced by the stabalization mechanism) visible in the bokeh which can be annoying. |
Can you show an example of this? I have two IS lenses, and I have noticed no change in quality of bokeh with IS on or off. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 03:50:33 PM · #21 |
always IS, u can always turn it off, but if ya aint got it, ya aint got it
: ) |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 03:51:09 PM · #22 |
I would personally skip the IS bit...more money, less battery life, something else to go wrong, more weight.
I am not sure on the last item, but I used a 70-200 IS lens and it was incredibly heavy. Not something i's want to hand hold for very long. Not having tried the Non-IS lens i don't know how much lighter it would be.
Without IS at 200mm you need 1/200 or so shutter for handheld. With IS that drops to about 1/50. I suppose that has advantages, but i have a flash....so for indoor that speed advantage is moot. I also have a tripod...
To each their own.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:17:36 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I am not sure on the last item, but I used a 70-200 IS lens and it was incredibly heavy. Not something i's want to hand hold for very long. Not having tried the Non-IS lens i don't know how much lighter it would be. |
There's a considerable difference in weight. The IS version is 1310g (my 80-200 is 1330g...It can be handheld but yes, it's heavy) while the non-IS is 705g.
That is pretty serious...Sure you gain 2-3 stops with the IS but you might also lose one of those stops if you're handholding a lens that weighs almost twice as much...
Edit: I was going to put in the US equivalents for the weights but it just doesn't make any sense! Pounds vs. ounces, blah blah...
This post is filled with lies, I tell you...LIES!! except the part about the metric system...See above for truth, I tell you...TRUTH!!
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:34:15.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:24:04 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
There's a considerable difference in weight. The IS version is 1310g (my 80-200 is 1330g...It can be handheld but yes, it's heavy) while the non-IS is 705g.
|
This is not right... You had all the numbers wrong.
IS version: 1470g
non IS version: 1310g
You compared to the f4L lens (I owned that one too)... a 160 gram difference is hardly noticable - at least not if you eat your porridge in the morning :)
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:24:32. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:25:12 PM · #25 |
Actually, from the Canon USA website:
IS version, 1470g
Non-IS version, 1310g
Difference, 160g, or 11%.
The f/4 version is the 705g one.
LOL, too slow!
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:25:35.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 10:08:06 AM EDT.
