| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2008 09:20:16 PM · #1 |
I'd like to hear from owners of both of these lenses to help me decide if the IS is worth the extra bucks. I'm generally a pretty steady shooter, but I have noticed a difference in having my 17-55 with the IS. Has anyone actually owned both? Some advice would be welcome.
Judy
Edit to add...would you choose a used IS model over a new non-IS?
Message edited by author 2008-06-09 21:21:05. |
|
|
|
06/09/2008 09:40:04 PM · #2 |
I sprung for the IS and never regretted it. Love this lens.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2008 09:49:26 PM · #3 |
| I had the f/4 no IS and sprung for the f/2.8 IS - if one is driving that far into the forest, why not go all the way through? |
|
|
|
06/09/2008 10:01:57 PM · #4 |
| Stabilization is definitely worth it! My debate was between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the IS lens. I went with the f/4 version because it's 1.7lbs (vs. 3.5lbs), it's slightly sharper, and most of my telephoto shots are outdoors anyway. No regrets. :-) |
|
|
|
06/09/2008 10:11:06 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Stabilization is definitely worth it! My debate was between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the IS lens. I went with the f/4 version because it's 1.7lbs (vs. 3.5lbs), it's slightly sharper, and most of my telephoto shots are outdoors anyway. No regrets. :-) |
I would have probably several opportunities to use it inside, so I'm pretty set on the 2.8, despite the size. I have used the IS version once on a loan and liked it alot. I think I'll probably end up searching for a good or refurbished IS unit.
Another thing...I'm seeing most of these lenses listed with the serial number or purchase number. Was there an issue with a certain number range of these lenses? |
|
|
|
06/09/2008 11:02:40 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
06/10/2008 01:42:32 AM · #7 |
I'll go with the crowd... I went for the 2.8 IS version, and have not regretted it. The IS is a huge benefit.
ETA: I'm not aware of any problems with date ranges... I think that folks are just being up-front about the age of the lens they are selling. Also, listing the serial number is one way to assure folks that the lens is not stolen.
FWIW, used lenses in very good to excellent condition tend to go for close to 90% of new value, so buying used is not that great a deal, IMO.
Message edited by author 2008-06-10 01:45:22. |
|
|
|
06/10/2008 02:10:24 AM · #8 |
Go with the IS version. That way, you can never say, "I wish I had bought the IS model". :-)
|
|
|
|
06/10/2008 02:17:03 AM · #9 |
| If I'm not mistaken taking in account the 1.6 crop factor of your camera the "IS" feature will be very beneficial giving you and extra stop or two when needed in low light situations and SS is a factor. |
|
|
|
06/10/2008 02:23:15 AM · #10 |
I am using the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS...
Compared with my friend pictures using Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS..
not much differences in sharpness...and the IS helpped us a lot.
I feel tha IS is a must after walk for long hours.
would be a little tired if you are using 2.8L hand held...
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 10:53:24 AM · #11 |
| I was bored at a shoot where the models didn't show up and while one guy was photographing one of the girls that did, I decided to play a little bit. I set my camera and took a shot a 1/10 @ 70mm. There's a little camera shake in it, but it's not too bad. That's pretty good considering with the crop factor, I should only be able to get a decent hand held shot at 1/100. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 10:56:32 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by danielcheong1974:
I am using the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS...
Compared with my friend pictures using Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS..
not much differences in sharpness...and the IS helpped us a lot.
I feel tha IS is a must after walk for long hours.
would be a little tired if you are using 2.8L hand held... |
I've had 2 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses. They're a little soft (if you're nit picking that is) at f/2.8, but when you stop down a bit to f/4-f/5.6 and up, you get a really really nice crisp image straight from the camera.
Here's a hand held shot at 1/80 @ 200mm (IS on) that's straight from the camera. No sharpening or anything. It was shot in RAW, so there's not in camera processing either.
//www.flickr.com/photos/cokronk/2499843581/sizes/o/ |
|
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: 12/27/2025 10:14:48 PM EST.
