DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 70-200mm f/2.8..IS worth it?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/15/2006 08:35:20 PM · #1
I am saving up to get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8... would you say the IS is worth $600.00+ more? Also does the 1.4x extender work good?

Thanks!
 10/15/2006 08:53:43 PM · #2
The question is, is it worth 600 bucks not to have to carry a tripod around plus buy the tripod collar. It's your money, your call. I would do it, but self restraint is not my strong suit.
 10/15/2006 08:58:50 PM · #3
depends what you are buying it for. wildlife? then yes... but for mainly sports, probably not. I am extremely budget concious... because i am in high school, and 600 dollars is an extra 2 or 3 months of saving. i bought the 200mm prime, because the price is so much more reasonable, i didnt really think that i would miss the range, and the image quality is actualy a little bit better. i LOVE it

Message edited by author 2006-10-15 20:59:11.
 10/15/2006 09:26:17 PM · #4
I'm saving the extra for IS. a lot of shots nearly need to be off tripod like birds and insects in flight. I think it's the only way to take shots like this from Larus.
 10/15/2006 09:47:32 PM · #5
IS will not help you reduce motion blur from moving objects. What it does is allow you to use a slower shutter speed handheld and improve your chances of getting a image that is acceptable for whatever you are going to use it for. It can also let you go to a slower shutter speed if you want to stop down more to increase depth of field. But it won't let you shoot at 1/250th of a second when you really need to be shooting at 1/60th of a second and you are already wide open on your apputure.

I've found that with IS on my 70-200 2.8L that I can shoot static objects about about 1/15th of a second and get an image that is acceptable for up to about an 8x10 print. If there is movement, there is going to be some movement blur at that speed... for instance shooting an animal walking or a person walking, the chances are the feet will be blured at least some. Sometimes this is ok as the main focus point is somewhere else on the image. Sometimes I can still get an acceptable web image out of it but not something that I can print.

So you might want to consider if you are hoping to get better stop action images with IS or if you are hoping to be able to take better low light images without having to use a tripod.

I do a lot of shooting in low light arenas, barns, indoors, etc., and it helps most of the time. But not all of the time because most of what I'm shooting is moving.

Mike
 10/15/2006 10:11:00 PM · #6
I guess I will keep on saving :)
 10/15/2006 10:18:46 PM · #7
worth every penny
 10/15/2006 10:34:19 PM · #8
It'll give you a good workout. Try carrying one around all day and you'll know what I mean.

I'm very happy with mine. It takes great pictures, and my biceps are looking good too. :D

10/15/2006 11:30:36 PM · #9
There's more to it than just the IS too, it's totally redesigned. Like Mick said, it's kind of heavy if you're not used to that, so if you're going to be carrying it around mounted on camera for long periods with the camera strap, switching to a neoprene strap really lightens the load on your neck.
 10/15/2006 11:43:14 PM · #10
Originally posted by elsapo:
I am saving up to get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8... would you say the IS is worth $600.00+ more? Also does the 1.4x extender work good?

Thanks!


Can't speak for the IS, but the 1.4x extender is excellent.

The was taken from the stands with the 70-200 f4.0L with the 1.4x extender. It is cropped quite a bit too. I am able to get 8x10 prints that look great. Could go bigger if not for the severe crop.


10/25/2006 03:20:08 PM · #11
i was just about to post a forumn entry about this, but saw it existed already. thought i'd add to it.

i'll use this for weddings, portraits, some event photography (low light - most non-flash) and for just a walkaround lens (nature, etc).

will the IS be worthwhile for me? i'm a college student, and i'm doing this on the side and will be doing it full time as soon as i graduate. money is an object. i am spending money from what i've made on photography to fund my purchases, and have enough built up for the 70-200mm 2.8 USM. will this be sufficient for weddings/portraits ? the 85mm (SHARP!) i have now is my main portrait lens, but this 70-200 will mainly be used for sports/events/weddings.

any input is greatly appreciated. thanks so much.

-Jon Rowe
//www.JRowePhotography.com
 10/25/2006 03:27:15 PM · #12
I had the same reservations, bought it and seldom take it off.
Great focal range, image quality and the IS is great.
Realistically you can shoot handheld at 1/30th. ( 1/20th if you're very steady ! )
People say it's " too heavy " but I'm no strongman and took it out for
a 5hr trip to the zoo with no real problems.
Also I used it to shoot a rock concert in a dark venue, shooting ISO 1600 at 1/125 and the images that came out were just gorgeous ! (yes..at ISO 1600 !!)
Get it - it's worth every penny.
 10/25/2006 03:27:32 PM · #13
Originally posted by jerowe:
i was just about to post a forumn entry about this, but saw it existed already. thought i'd add to it.

i'll use this for weddings, portraits, some event photography (low light - most non-flash) and for just a walkaround lens (nature, etc).

will the IS be worthwhile for me? i'm a college student, and i'm doing this on the side and will be doing it full time as soon as i graduate. money is an object. i am spending money from what i've made on photography to fund my purchases, and have enough built up for the 70-200mm 2.8 USM. will this be sufficient for weddings/portraits ? the 85mm (SHARP!) i have now is my main portrait lens, but this 70-200 will mainly be used for sports/events/weddings.

any input is greatly appreciated. thanks so much.

-Jon Rowe
//www.JRowePhotography.com


Quick comment: Sports + IS = useless.
When shooting sports, you are moving your lens around, so stabilization is useless. Plus, your shutter speeds will hopefully eliminate any blur from camera shake (or lens shake in the case of this behemoth).

For weddings/events, I can see where you may need IS for low light indoors or evening shots, but be aware that if you are shooting a moving subject, the blur will come from the motion of the subject, so the IS may not help there either.

But, if you can afford it, as someone said - you can always switch it off on the IS lens and get the non-IS version. I cannot switch it ON on my 70-200.
 10/25/2006 03:50:48 PM · #14
Originally posted by owen:
I'm saving the extra for IS. a lot of shots nearly need to be off tripod like birds and insects in flight. I think it's the only way to take shots like this from Larus.


That is one big bird/insect. :P
 10/25/2006 03:55:35 PM · #15
look close at the windshield... i see many a bug, and possibly a bird dropping... j/k ;}

Originally posted by yanko:
That is one big bird/insect. :P

 10/25/2006 04:09:37 PM · #16
my 70-200 doesn't have IS but i will be getting the 2.8 IS version sometime. i think IS is great. I took this shot hanheld at 1/15 holding the camera away from me pointing up and it came out great because of IS.


Message edited by author 2006-10-25 16:09:59.
 10/25/2006 08:21:18 PM · #17
All what i can say is that i love my 70-200 IS.
this website was the reason i got that lens, most got great bodies and lenses.
 10/25/2006 10:03:01 PM · #18
I was asking the same question at local camera store. For wildlife/portraits, stabilization is nice, but for sports, it seems IS doesn't matter. You are moving and the lens can't stabilize. If the subject is moving too fast for the shutter speed, you will always get blur. They suggested the 70-200 non-IS for sports to save about $600. I read somewhere IS compensates for the photographer shaking the camera, not the subject's motion.

My plug for the 2.8 that I rented for the weekend:
From my experience in youth sports soccer and bands in clubs, my Canon 75-300 4-5.6 IS USM got less 'keepers' than the 70-200 2.8 IS USM. (Both with IS on) But maybe it's just me. The 2.8 gets better color without making white 'blobs' on the uniforms in mid-day sun. The soccer moms that buy photos noticed the difference immediately between the f4 and the f2.8. I will be killing my credit card for the 2.8 in the near future.

The only downsides I have found to the 2.8 is the room it takes up in the bag (I like to travel light photographing bands) and the weight. After a couple of days and seeing the quality of pictures, I didn't really care that my arm hurt.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/05/2026 02:40:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/05/2026 02:40:33 PM EST.