DSLRUsers.com

Hi 'yall
Two questions relating to the L series 70-200mm f2.8 lens.

Firstly...
I have the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lens- how much better will I find the L series. As well as general photos of everything, I work with young performers which means I often end up taking photos during dress rehearsals and performances so low light is pretty normal. I tend to use my 100mm for the closeups and my fabulous 50mm 1.8 for group shots for these situations. Having a 70-200 that I could use in such situations seems like a great idea. I could add the 2 times converter and still be under my current f stop at max zoom. Am I going to realise this advantage or have I already got the kit I need in the 50 and the 100?

and secondly...
If I do go with the 70-200 there is a huge price difference between the IS and the non IS models (at firs look over $1000 difference!). My 100mm doesn't have IS and neither of course does my 50mm. Is the IS all it's cracked up to be (and worth an extra $1000). I do like the stabilisation in my 70-300 as it makes shooting cranked out very easy (the stabilisation as you half press the shutter is great). There is also a big weight price to pay in the IS version as I understand.

Any thoughts would be very much apprecated.

Thanks
Ian

Ian,
I purchased the 70-300 IS USM as my first long lens (and it is a superb lens) and took some sensational shots , and even bought a 1.4 (non Canon because they don't make one to fit) for sports and was perfectly happy for a couple of years ...and then I tried the 70-200 2.8 IS and while I wasn't initially convinced when outside in great light once I started to do more indoor work have really enjoyed the extra speed at low light . I have now added the Canon 1.4 for sport and really happy with the results.
Can only recommend you try one before parting with your dollars - even if you hire one for the weekend and shoot the same subject with both lenses and compare for yourself ...basially at 6X4 you wont notice the difference but once you start shoot moving objects (people) indoors or in poor light and blow them up it has been worth the investment (or at least I have convinced myself) .
I use it a lot for indoor school concerts and sport and it serves me better than either the 50 or 100 especially when I'm not in the front couple of rows.
DebT

There are four options in Canon alone....is IS worth it? that is for you to decide.

If you think you will use teleconverters, then definitely go for a F2.8.

Hey Ian,

70-200 2.85 (IS/non IS) is a superb lens. I can't tell optically how better it is compared to the 70-300. The advantage of having the 70-200 is perhaps the 2.8 giving you more flexibility in getting higher shutter speed and working in low light conditions. Depending on what type of child performance you shoot I don't think IS will help since your subjects being kids are always moving around

However do as Deb suggested and hire it out. One thing you will notice is the lens is heavy (The IS version).

Hiring sounds like a great idea- pardon my ignorance but who does this?

ian.bertram wrote:Hiring sounds like a great idea- pardon my ignorance but who does this?

Canon gear is relatively easy to hire, try:
-Foto Riesel (9299 6745) I know we have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in the hire dept
-SilverPixel
-L and P P