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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Canon vs. Canon
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/16/2005 04:05:14 PM · #1
I'm trying to decide which lens to buy: Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. I've read great reviews about both lenses...but I want to know if spending the extra $500-700 on the "IS" version is worth it. I know there are quite a few people on DP with both lenses...so I would appreciate any input. Thanks!
09/16/2005 04:06:17 PM · #2
I have the IS and it is 100% worth the price difference.
09/16/2005 04:08:43 PM · #3
Personally, if I was in that position I would buy the non-USM and with the extra money get a 17-40mm f/4.0L.
09/16/2005 04:18:27 PM · #4
I have the IS and it's 100% worth it.. if you have the money it's not something to think about..

it's like thinking about if you should get a Porche with or without an engine ;)
09/16/2005 04:25:50 PM · #5
I chose not to buy the IS version when I purchased mine. I don't regret it at all. I shoot sports... a lot of poorly lit football, basketball, and soccer at local high schools and colleges with it. People who have the IS verison will always tell you that it's worth the money to have it. I don't know too many of them who have actually shot with the non IS version and can provide you with a real comparison though.
09/16/2005 04:47:34 PM · #6
I don't know what I'd do without the IS. If you don't get it, you may sell the non-IS down the line to upgrade to the IS.
09/16/2005 05:11:49 PM · #7
Definitely get the IS version. The 70-200 IS is by far and away my favorite lens to shoot with.
09/16/2005 05:36:25 PM · #8
I was just looking at this very lens yesterday and must've read 50 reviews on various sites.

99% of the people said they had no regrets, that its a no brainer, if you have the money just do it. A few of them had owned both the IS and non-IS version.

Just Google: Canon 70-200 review
09/16/2005 06:44:21 PM · #9
I've owned the non-is version for over 7 years and I used teh is version for 2. The IS is definitely worth it. I'll be selling my version to upgrade to the IS very soon.
09/16/2005 06:52:49 PM · #10
The problem with IS is it lets you shoot at lower shutter speeds that may only lead to blurred pictures because of the subject moving. I see no advantage for action shots.

Where it is handy is when you want to squeeze out some f-stops on stationary targets that move slower then 1/200 of a second.
09/16/2005 06:54:11 PM · #11
IS is truly amazing, I would spend the extra money for it.

June
09/16/2005 07:12:03 PM · #12
I rented both at the local photography store for the weekend before making my purchase. Once you experience IS, there's no going back. - If you can, find a place that rents lenses, it's the only way to really know if the lens fits your needs.

Message edited by author 2005-09-16 19:14:23.
09/16/2005 07:40:36 PM · #13
Originally posted by mpemberton:

The problem with IS is it lets you shoot at lower shutter speeds that may only lead to blurred pictures because of the subject moving. I see no advantage for action shots.

Where it is handy is when you want to squeeze out some f-stops on stationary targets that move slower then 1/200 of a second.


This is the most informative statement here. I have the Nikon version (VR). Decide what you are shooting first. For anything moving IS will only give you a false sense of securtiy. I find myself forgetting and then shooting to slow, hence blurred subjects anyway. Not to take away from the IS magic as it is very nice in teh right circumstances.
09/16/2005 08:12:48 PM · #14
Originally posted by mpemberton:

The problem with IS is it lets you shoot at lower shutter speeds that may only lead to blurred pictures because of the subject moving. I see no advantage for action shots.


Are you sure?
' . substr('//www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~rain/gallery/albums/temp2/knockhill1_800.thumb.jpg', strrpos('//www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~rain/gallery/albums/temp2/knockhill1_800.thumb.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~rain/gallery/albums/temp2/knockhill3_800.thumb.jpg', strrpos('//www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~rain/gallery/albums/temp2/knockhill3_800.thumb.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Couldn't have come close to that without IS... 1/125 and 1/50 of a second respectively. I find it invaluable shooting action.
09/16/2005 08:14:42 PM · #15
The IS is very nice, and I don't at all regret spending the extra. I certainly have shot other 200mm, non-IS lenses, so I do feel I have a valid comparison.
As previously posted, it is of less value for action shots, unless motion blur is the effect you're after. It is great for panning though, in mode 2!
09/16/2005 11:54:29 PM · #16
riot, any action photo's like that I have, I have never seen banding like you see (mainly on the green)
was this the grass in the background, or is it the IS componating in some weird way?

I have never shot with IS.. but at long telephoto I wish I had it!
I don't see me getting an IS lens anytime soon, the tamron lens is almost glued to my camera, and I never really have hake issues with it.
when shootiung telephoto.. the lens is so heavy I never use it without a tripod anyway.. its a nightmare handheld.. and I only really use it for sports or nature, so need a 1/1000+ shutter anyway.

I usually shoot races at the same shutters without IS, and almost never lose the subject from sharp focus, you just follow the subject smoothly and click, follow thru.. trpiod with fluid head, tripod at same angle on ground as the track.
09/17/2005 12:17:04 AM · #17
get the IS one for sure, it focuses a little bit closer than the no IS version too

09/17/2005 12:23:05 AM · #18
The IS version no question. It also has weather sealing and circular aperture blades making for more pleasant bokeh.
09/17/2005 12:44:25 AM · #19
Originally posted by cvt_:

riot, any action photo's like that I have, I have never seen banding like you see (mainly on the green)
was this the grass in the background, or is it the IS componating in some weird way?



I'm pretty sure that vertical banding is the posts holding up chain-link fencing in the BG, blurred by the camera pan.

R.
09/17/2005 07:31:43 AM · #20
Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by cvt_:

riot, any action photo's like that I have, I have never seen banding like you see (mainly on the green)
was this the grass in the background, or is it the IS componating in some weird way?



I'm pretty sure that vertical banding is the posts holding up chain-link fencing in the BG, blurred by the camera pan.

R.

agreed.
09/17/2005 07:33:48 AM · #21
On Luminous Lamdscape they did a review of the IS vs the non-IS. The end conclusion was that if you don't have either lens allreayd the IS is FOR SURE the way to go. if you have the non-IS allready, then perhaps you have to way your options a little more. The review had the non-is, but decided to buy the IS fairly quickly after doing the review.

The review linked here.
09/17/2005 07:51:53 AM · #22
Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by cvt_:

riot, any action photo's like that I have, I have never seen banding like you see (mainly on the green)
was this the grass in the background, or is it the IS componating in some weird way?



I'm pretty sure that vertical banding is the posts holding up chain-link fencing in the BG, blurred by the camera pan.

R.


Yep, got it spot on :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 06:43:51 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 06:43:51 AM EST.