DSLRUsers.com

Quandary time - to get IS or non IS version of the 70-200 f2.8.

After making the switch, I'm somewhat left short in the tele-zoom department.

Options I've explored include the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 however I want to try and adopt the buy once, buy right mentality so will go for the Canon lenses.

It's a bit obvious with that sort of mentality to just go to the deep end and get the IS version, but having a long and hard think about whether I need the IS as I have a monopod and the advantage of going high ISO.

I will be working in low light situations, but it won't be dark to the point that I'll need to handhold at 1/10, f2.8 and ISO1600.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks and greatly appreciated in advance.

I would say that you should get the IS. Although at the moment the high-iso shooting etc would be helpful, you need to look at the glass as an investment over xx years, not just x years.

The next camera you may buy might have a need for the IS, and it always hurts when you say 'I wish I got xx rather than yy'.

cheers

You said it yourself, buy once...

Definitely get the IS

I have to agree, if you can afford the money on an IS do it. The only reason not to get it would be if constrained on the money side.

They are a very nice lens though and handle well.

Definitely get IS and definitely stay away from the Sigma for your 5D. Fred miranda's forums can tell you more - the Canon version is far superior

Piro, considered the 135 F2 with tele at all as a cheaper alternative, just as fast and sharper? No IS though

I love my 135L

If you don't buy the IS version you will forever be wondering if you should have purchased it and will eventually cave and buy it anyway (I know I did).

More versatility with the zoom is good. And once you chuck your TC on the 135 youre over the 70-200's 2.8 aperture....

Kyle wrote:More versatility with the zoom is good. And once you chuck your TC on the 135 youre over the 70-200's 2.8 aperture....

How?

135 F2 plus Tele 1.4x = f2.8. Same aperture

135 isnt a replacement for the 70-200, but its a darn good solution for portrait work on the 5D, Low light indoor sports and outdoor sports. With the tele , even better and at half the cost.

Its arguably canons sharpest/finest lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

I'm after the 70-200 as it'll be a tad inefficient taking off the TC when a model is stomping down the runway

Wonder if Monsieurs Gary and Poon can wave a magic wand to reduce the cost

The price is already a steal imo

PiroStitch wrote:Wonder if Monsieurs Gary and Poon can wave a magic wand to reduce the cost

I did exactly that just last week.

but it won't be dark to the point that I'll need to handhold at 1/10, f2.8 and ISO1600.

Yes it will.

may i ask the $$ difference between IS and non......

!~DeViNe~DaRkNeSs~! wrote:may i ask the $$ difference between IS and non......

approx $1000

petal666 wrote:

!~DeViNe~DaRkNeSs~! wrote:may i ask the $$ difference between IS and non......

approx $1000

holy ... holy...... Jesus!

If you can afford the IS/VR, go for it.

You can always turn off IS/VR on a lens so equipped, you can't turn it on when it doesn't have it


If you can't afford it now, it's probably not that big of an issue - get the non-IS now, trade later. That's the great thing about the pro-level Nikon and Canon glass - it holds it's value very well, and something like a 70-200/2.8 in good condition is easy to offload.

daniel_r wrote:If you can't afford it now, it's probably not that big of an issue - get the non-IS now, trade later. That's the great thing about the pro-level Nikon and Canon glass - it holds it's value very well, and something like a 70-200/2.8 in good condition is easy to offload.

Especially if you buy it 2nd hand to start off with.

gstark wrote:

but it won't be dark to the point that I'll need to handhold at 1/10, f2.8 and ISO1600.

Yes it will.

That's just mean and evil

Since resale value is usually still quite high I might settle for the non IS for the time being and see how I go.

Can I be the first to say "I told you so" when you get the IS version?

Can I??

Can I ??

And no

ACtually is there a point for IS if it's going to be used on a monopod?

Pirostitch, I'll share with you how I burnt $700 AUD

My experience is nikon, but I know you can follow along...

I wanted 70-200. Saw the VR in Ted's for near on $3000. So asked about the ED, and it was half price, $1600. Great, thought, both 2.8, great glass, fast enough for outdoors. Was happy. Loved it outdoors, shoots where I had the sky as a light source, and enjoyed the bokeh. However, then the sun started to come down (or the indoor equivalent).

The aperture needed to open up wide, for the light was lower, I lost many keepers due to too shallow DOF (portraits of more than 1 subject at 2.8 are not clear). So, I wanted to be up over 5.6, maybe even 8, but that meant I had to be down near on 1/30th of a second, and all rules of thumb fall out the window, since I was at generally at 135mm-200mm!!! So nothing was clear due to camera shake under say 1/100th (at long focal length).

Then comes in the VR. Then the AUD strengthened!!! I was no longer shopping for glass in AU, and HK pricing was great. Purchased the VR for $2200 AUD (at that time), and can now, handhold, in the DARK!!!

I can hold 135-200mm at 1/10th of a second, and with a carefully posed subject, can enjoy nice sharp images.

Add a flash, and I can get a bright color background, of say street lights, and lots of detail in the bokeh!!!

Sold the 80-200ED for about $900. Dont get me wrong, its great glass, but if you are looking at indoor, you are going to LOVE the VR (assuming IS stands for image stabiliser on the canon kit).

PiroStitch wrote::lol: And no

ACtually is there a point for IS if it's going to be used on a monopod?

The software, should learn. It should know you are on a monopod, and not compensate in that direction, just help with horizontal motion.

I thought that too, that a monopod would make up for the VR. But I love the flaxibility of handheld.

My advise, wait. Save, and get the IS.

Thanks for your experience Bruce I'm going to wait and see what happens over the next couple of weeks. My wife offered me the $$ to get the IS but I'll wait and see.

What about the 70-200 f/4 IS USM?

Much cheaper than the 2.8. Yes, there's a couple of extra stops missing, but with Canon's high-ISO performance and IS it's not such a big problem. Not only is that lens cheaper, it's also smaller and lighter. Works well for me.

thanks rmp but i really need the tripod collar which the f4 doesn't have.

Some people say that there's a noticable sharpness difference between the IS and non-IS version, but for me, the IS version is sharp enough.

I bought it, because I'd rather not long for something else in the future, then realised that I could have spent the $1000 on another lens or more gear. Then again, I'm happy that I got the IS version.

If you get the IS version, the only thing you might complain about is the sharpness (if you're one of those people who can tell the difference in image quality between the IS and non IS), and the extra you paid for the IS

Adam,

I did read that the non IS is sharper but how much pixel peeping do you have to do to notice it? From what I've seen there's not a whole heap of difference.

Well IS it is then. I lost the argument with my wife.... and I have to prove the ROI

PiroStitch wrote:thanks rmp but i really need the tripod collar which the f4 doesn't have.

The f/4 doesn't have the tripod collar because it's not heavy enough to warrant it.

But if you buy a 70-200 of any type, go IS.

Piro,

I'm thinking along the same lines. My best mate is a Canon pro and he has lots of good glass (135mm F2 etc etc) which I can use any time I want.

I was thinking (well, not completely seriously at this stage) of selling my Nikon gear, buying a 30D (which will give me 5 fps as compared to D70 which is only 3) with kit lens (17-85 I think it is) and splurging on a 70-200 F2.8 plus TC for surfing shots.

Then again, I could upgrade to a D200 at 5fps but I still need a good quality tele lens. I suppose I could go the route of 70-200 VR but they're just as expensive as the Canon alternative.

Mmmmm...

I will be very interested to see how your Canon lens performs (if & when you buy it).

Cheers,

Ozi.

Mid to late last year I was lucky enough to borrow a mates 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens for the entire day and I was that impressed with the quality and sharpness of my photo’s that I had to go out and buy one myself.

I was also wondering if I should get it without IS but thought as this will be an investment over a number of years I may as well go the whole hog and get the IS.

PiroStitch wrote:My wife offered me the $$ to get the IS but I'll wait and see.

Jeez, can I borrow your wife?

I buy what I want anyway, but I have to sneak it in the house and then do the 'what, that old lens..... I've had it for yonks...'

stetner wrote:

PiroStitch wrote:My wife offered me the $$ to get the IS but I'll wait and see.

Jeez, can I borrow your wife?

I buy what I want anyway, but I have to sneak it in the house and then do the 'what, that old lens..... I've had it for yonks...'

I wish, my wife is the Minister of Finance. She knows all and sees all, I can't sneak anything by her. But bless her she lets me get loads of toys though so I really cannot complain

I didnt even consider the non IS version, I bought the 70-200IS and It is my favourite lense!

Go for the jump and buy 'big white'. you wont regret it!

Its arguably canons sharpest/finest lens

the 135L gets beaten by the 200/1.8L anyday.
Im hoping they will re-release it with IS!

J