70-200 f/2.8 USM .... IS or not?

04/21/2006 08:58:54 PM · #1

Okay, I think this question has been asked but I can't find the thread. I'm ready to buy the canon 70-200 lens but I'm wondering if the IS is worth the extra cost or not?

Any comments?

IceRock

04/21/2006 09:10:58 PM · #2

not for landscape picture but for action or street shot etc .. ice

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

04/21/2006 09:12:13 PM · #3

I understand that. I'm just wondering if I should spend the extra dollars for the IS model.

Chiqui

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/21/2006 09:21:28 PM · #4

Originally posted by dleach:

I understand that. I'm just wondering if I should spend the extra dollars for the IS model.

Absolutely.

June

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/21/2006 09:23:51 PM · #5

Would you buy a Porsche and not get performance tires?

Get the IS.

Aperture

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/21/2006 09:29:43 PM · #6

It all depends on what your shooting, if you shooting alot of action, low light etc, go with the IS, I have the Non IS lens and TOTALLY in love with it, the quality is unbelieveable!

Aperture

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/21/2006 09:33:02 PM · #7

Hey Leach, I've checked out your work before, nice stuff, you don't need the IS if you use the rules, tripod... etc. Save yourself a few hundred bucks, and you still got one awesome lens, the extra bucks you could put towards a nice 2X for it and shoot 400mm at f5.6 not bad

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/21/2006 09:41:55 PM · #8

I'll say that I love the IS for lower light situations and slower shutter speeds as it compensates for my hand-holding in those conditions. You can also compensate by using the tripod but I find that sometimes I just don't have one with me or the social setting may not lend itself to setting up a tripod (photographed a bike race as a spectator and while I could stand shoulder-to-shoulder and use the IS to shoot longer shots I wouldn't have had room to setup the tripod. Is that worth it? Was for me.

I'd also say that Aperture's suggestions of the 2X was something that sounded good to me so I tried but didn't like. The 1.4X was OK but I rented the 2X and wow did it suck the life outta the lens.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/21/2006 10:49:03 PM · #9

IS, definitely. at 200mm, you can shoot comfortably at 1/50 s, even 1/30s is doable. That's about as slow as you'd want to go shooting live subjects, and it really makes this lens a winner.
There are a couple additional difference sbetween the IS and non-IS versions. The IS is weather sealed, and has a more circular aperture. The first means nothing to non-1-series shooters, but the second is an advantage.
Some reports put the non-IS version as slightly sharper than the IS version, though the observed differences are very small and just as likely to be due to sample variation.

PhotoRyno

Canon EOS-5D

04/21/2006 11:11:31 PM · #10

That is a very heavy lens, if you are going to do a lot of hand holding shots go for the IS

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

04/21/2006 11:21:25 PM · #11

If you have the money, go for it.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

04/22/2006 01:16:09 AM · #12

It really depends on what your needs are. Ask yourself what you want to do with it.
Several things about the IS is that it prevents handshake by 3 stops or so. You can also use it to stabilize panning shots. In dim places with a motionless or a slow moving subject, the IS can be used to lower shutter speed by about 3 stops.

The negative things about the IS version is looking at photozone, it is not as sharp as the non IS version, especially wide open and at long distance. So you can hand hold wide open in dim places but it's absolute sharpenss seems less than the non IS version. It also weighs more and costs about $500 more. The IS really eats up battery power as well. Lastly, you have to half press the shutter and let it settle for about a second before the IS can be used. So if you want to quickly bring up and shoot, the IS won't work. If you half press and hold or pan with a subject it will work, but it'll eat up battery power.

No wrong answer here, just gotta get what fits your needs the best.
Good luck

IceRock

04/22/2006 09:54:12 AM · #13

I suport this comment ! ice

Originally posted by Aperture:

It all depends on what your shooting, if you shooting alot of action, low light etc, go with the IS, I have the Non IS lens and TOTALLY in love with it, the quality is unbelieveable!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/22/2006 10:04:17 AM · #14

Thanks folks. I think I'll go with the IS version. I can always turn it off when I don't need it.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/22/2006 10:06:09 AM · #15

Great choice... and when you get a tad older you will notice that that feature will be on more often than not...Ask me how I...knowhehehehehe

Ray

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/24/2006 04:02:21 PM · #16

Okay, the lens is on order and should be in before the end of the week. Time for some turkey vulture photos!

Prof_Fate

04/24/2006 04:13:33 PM · #17

If it was me i'd get the IS....but I have the Tamron 70-210 2.8, a 3 pound lens. I found i can handhold it below the 1/focal length rule of thumb. My sigma 70-300 i could not - the only difference is the 70-210 is 3 times heavier.

So...

judojoe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/25/2006 05:44:34 PM · #18

I have had my Lense for about4 weeks and the image stabaliser really works hard to get you the best possible photo under the circumstances
you are faced with.
If you fork out and buy the 70-200. I bet you wish you had went the extra mile and got IS

Cheers.

Joe

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/25/2006 05:46:10 PM · #19

Originally posted by judojoe:

If you fork out and buy the 70-200. I bet you wish you had went the extra mile and got IS

Cheers.

Joe

I can attest to that. I dunno about for you men, but for me, the lens is pretty heavy so after a few minutes I'm not very steady and IS would definetly help out.

04/25/2006 07:22:02 PM · #20

I did order the IS version... UPS says it will be delivered tomorrow :-)

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/25/2006 07:27:28 PM · #21

I have had the 70-200 2.8L IS for a couple of years now. I can say that it is every bit as sharp as the 70-200 2.8L without IS and my 70-200 4.0L lens.

For low light and shots of static objects, it does what it says it will. If you are hoping to be able to take moving objects in low light and not get movement, forget it. That's not how it works.

The current IS lenses will shut themselves off when you have them on a tripod. You can use the IS on a mono-pod. If you are doing a lot of spinning and turning around... as in shooting air shows or fast moving birds, you will need to turn the IS off. The moving the lens all over the place will confuse the IS and you will not get sharp shots.

The IS does shut itself off to conserve battery power and when you first push the shutter button you will see the lens jerk. This is normal and does not affect the shot or slow it down from shooting. In all the time I've used IS on my 70-200 2.8L and 100-400 4.5/5.6L I have not noticed that much faster use of my batteries. Shooting higher ISOs will use the batteries up faster.

The lens is heavy but I've carried it on my camera all day while walking back and forth at events. My neck complains more than my arm, but I've learned to rest the weight whenever I get the chance.

For those that don't have the budget for a 2.8L version, the 70-200 4.0L lens is also a great choice. I couldn't sell mine when I moved up to the 2.8L IS lens and use it when I need a lighter lens and don't need the faster fstop.

Mike

Prof_Fate

04/26/2006 11:14:20 AM · #22

The IS version is on my one-day list. I got this at church on sunday - ISO 1600, 204mm handheld at 1/80 at f2.8 - like i mentioned earlier, I seem to be able to handhold this lens pretty well. I just drool over what i might be able to do with an IS lens!

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D