| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2005 11:51:01 AM · #1 |
OK, so I'm just about to raid the bank to buy myself a new Canon 70-200 f2.8 L, and to be honest I can't really afford the IS version, but....
I want to know from you guys whether I would really kick myself for not waiting another 6months and getting the ultimate.
Your thoughts please
Falc |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 11:59:05 AM · #2 |
When using it in low-light situations, what type of photography are you thinking you'll be doing most?
Edit:
If you are shooting mostly sports, motion blur is more problematic than camera shake. Motion blur is of course not improved with IS. As posted by doctornick, there are other reaons to get the IS version. Still the added $600 is "cause for pause." On the whole, and for the types of photography I do, I do not regret springing for the IS version.
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 13:48:53.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 12:04:31 PM · #3 |
Get the IS version. There is NO reason not to get it and there are PLENTY of reasons to get it. Hand-holdabilty greatly increased with IS, amazing Bokeh because of the circular aperture blades (the non-is does not have that), weather seals etc etc.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 01:21:19 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
There is NO reason not to get it... |
Well maybe one reason...  |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 01:23:53 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by doctornick:
There is NO reason not to get it... |
Well maybe one reason... |
LOL yah about $600
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 01:31:49 PM · #6 |
Falc, I just bought the same lens, and on the basis of a few opportunities I've had to use it, you will be kicking yourself in the butt for not spending the extra bucks. The difference is stunning to me, who doesn't often use a tripod.
Incidentally, this one hell of a lens.
Originally posted by Falc:
OK, so I'm just about to raid the bank to buy myself a new Canon 70-200 f2.8 L, and to be honest I can't really afford the IS version, but....
I want to know from you guys whether I would really kick myself for not waiting another 6months and getting the ultimate.
Your thoughts please
Falc |
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 01:40:59 PM · #7 |
| get the IS, you can always turn it off, but boy is it nice to just walk around free with no tripod if you want to |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:25:04 PM · #8 |
darn. I was hoping somebody would say that the non-IS is very good and the IS not worth the 600$
Well, there goes my pension fund.....
:)
slight hijack
what about the 300 F(something wide) IS. Costs between the 70-200 IS and non-IS. I'm most interested in birds, so reach is paramount
Thanks
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 14:30:28.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:27:07 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:27:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Falc:
OK, so I'm just about to raid the bank to buy myself a new Canon 70-200 f2.8 L, and to be honest I can't really afford the IS version, but....
I want to know from you guys whether I would really kick myself for not waiting another 6months and getting the ultimate... |
The choice between an f/4 IS and an f/2.8 non-IS would be easier, wouldn't it?
I chose the non-IS for two reasons: 1. cost, 2. the increased complexity of the added IS feature. Ron Galbraith's forum lists a fair shake of error issues (1 and 99, if I remember correctly) appearing with this version. Reliable equipment is high on my list.
(There ya go, Gauti!)
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 14:28:54.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:33:04 PM · #11 |
There is the point Zeuszen brought up. I do occasionally get an err99 when using this lens with a 1.4x extender and IS turned on. It doesn't happen that often for me, but it has happened.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:41:58 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gauti:
...slight hijack what about the 300 F(something wide) IS. Costs between the 70-200 IS and non-IS. I'm most interested in birds, so reach is paramount
Thanks |
That's the 300mm f/4L IS, I have that lens, very sharp and light and fast. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 02:45:06 PM · #13 |
I have IS on my 300mm f4 and I don't regret it. I almost bought the non-IS version, but am now glad that I sprung for the IS version. The IS is like an insurance policy, it's there if you need it.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 03:12:10 PM · #14 |
| Oh bugger, I too was hoping you would all say, don't bother with the IS, its not worth the extra. Looks like I'll be waiting another few months then :-( |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 03:38:20 PM · #15 |
I have the the 600 f/4 IS and never use the IS. Under identical circustances with the lens completly still - no shake - the IS will actually dull down the focus as opposed to shooting without it. I can see the atvantage of IS shooting hand-held, but honestly, I don't see that as an option with the 600.
My advice is get the non and spend the money you save on a awesome tripod. In the realm of sharp pictures a good tripod is worth considerably more than IS.
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 15:39:48.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 05:33:56 PM · #16 |
| OK - so has anyone had a look at the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 DO IS USM - I don't remember seeing any real reports of this one. |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 06:03:58 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Falc:
OK - so has anyone had a look at the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 DO IS USM - I don't remember seeing any real reports of this one. |
I don't like the bokeh of that lens, it can yield some very strange artifacts.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 06:09:09 PM · #18 |
The downside of a good sharp 70-200 is that suddenly all other zoom lenses are like "is that all?". The Nikkor DX 18-70 @f8 is not as sharp as the VR 70-200 @ f2.8...... Now I want a Nikkor AF-S 28-70 f2.8. :(
At least it is a better addiction than Poker. :)
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 06:17:21 PM · #19 |
Just another minor point in favor of the IS (Which is the reason I'd spring for it if buying a 70-200, maybe next year).
I quote from the Canon EF-Lens Guide:
"If the EF 70-200 F/2.8L USM lens is attached to an EOS camera having multiple focusing points and an Extender is attached to the lens, only the centre focusing point will be usable for AF."
ie: if you use the 1.4x extender, which is very popular with these lenses, you loose all but your center focusing point.. The IS version dosn't suffer from this limitation.
For me the multiple 9 point focus on the 20D is a good feature (45 if you have a 1 series body, mutter mumble). I wouldn't want to lose it for the sake of saving a few $...
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 06:38:06 PM · #20 |
Dear Falc:
I highly recommend buying the IS version. It is a heavy lense to carry around, especially if camera has the extra battery pack or motor drive. However, the results are stunning. For Hand held photography.........it is a must. |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 09:36:03 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The downside of a good sharp 70-200 is that suddenly all other zoom lenses are like "is that all?"... |
Well, except for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L :-)
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 09:43:13 PM · #22 |
I don't have the IS version and I don't regret NOT buying it for one second. I do shoot sports in low and generally crappy light. The non IS version does fine.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:41:11 PM · #23 |
This thread makes me sick! The "carry around" telephoto lens I've been using is a Tamron 28-300mm and I've been wanting to go and buy a Canon 70-200mm F4. After seeing my telephoto shots with my Tamron and seeing telephoto shots here with the Canon F4, my Tamron's clarity doesn't even compare.
Now, after reading this thread, everyone is spending like $1600 for the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS version!! Well I'm not going to follow you all to the bank and spring for that one.. I think I'll be happy with the F4 version. From what I hear, it's the same glass, and if I use a tripod, then I should be ok. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:50:14 PM · #24 |
Day 1 sigma 75-300 : (got my money back as it needed chipping)
Week 2 70-300 IS USM : nice lens for the money and lost only £20 when I sold it
Month 3: 70-200 f/4 L WOW!
I'd like to think that I am becoming a better fotog but am sure the quality of lens you use is a great help :)
Next? I need to save some £££'s
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:09:22 AM EDT.
