Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS?

yehosaphat · 3rd September 2006

Dear all,

Just like to hear your views on the above. Tried to do a search in the forum but cant seem to find any similar discussions. Anyways, I hope those who own these lens can comment.

I currently own a 70-200mm f4L and am very satisfied by the performance and bokeh of this lens. Usually, I do outdoor shoots and church events. It is during indoor events like in church, that I realised that most often I am shooting on the tele side of the lens and is always boosting up the ISO to compensate for a hand-holdable shutter speed. Not very nice....

So can you guys advise if i were to decide to upgrade to either of the above, which would you recommend? OF course many of you will say go for the IS! But my qn is does the IS version justify for the additional hundreds of dollars or will that one additional stop of light already suffice?

Oh and the recent news about the 70-200mm f4L IS is not really an option as I would rather go for the 2.8 with that kind of money

Thanks in advance!

sehsuan · 3rd September 2006

The IS version is very worth it.

billpepsi · 3rd September 2006

Originally Posted by yehosaphat

Oh and the recent news about the 70-200mm f4L IS is not really an option as I would rather go for the 2.8 with that kind of money

Thanks in advance!

Re: 70-200 f4 IS, read from somewhere that the extra 4th stop takes 3sec to kick in, and price is double of the current f4 non IS? so may give this a miss.

tamiya_model · 3rd September 2006

I personally chose and have bought the IS version, despite others telling me that save the $$$ for the no IS version and spend it on a good tripod system or other lenses.

Because, after using my first IS lens, the 17-85, I knew that IS was the way to go for me. The opportunities it opens up for you is great, and surprisingly, more keeper shots in my opinion. A senior of mine said that it is the user, not the lens and the IS thing is crap and I should go improve on my skills and bla, but when he got his IS lens, he too said that his keeper rate went up by 40%.

Just to show you how useful it is. If you already have an IS lens, you know how good it is.

Low shutter + low iso

AReality · 3rd September 2006

Originally Posted by tamiya_model

Because, after using my first IS lens, the 17-85, I knew that IS was the way to go for me. The opportunities it opens up for you is great, and surprisingly, more keeper shots in my opinion. A senior of mine said that it is the user, not the lens and the IS thing is crap and I should go improve on my skills and bla, but when he got his IS lens, he too said that his keeper rate went up by 40%.

Just to show you how useful it is. If you already have an IS lens, you know how good it is.

Low shutter + low iso

So your meaning of a good photograph == sharp pics?

Am I correct to say that?

.

eng01170 · 3rd September 2006

Get the IS version.

ShaoWei · 3rd September 2006

By all Means IS assuming your budget allows, goes a long way when this lens is over a kilo and you're intending to handhold it throughout an event. Went for non-IS coz I couldn't afford it back then. You won't go wrong making this choice.

TrailsofLife · 3rd September 2006

Can afford get with IS, cannot afford (like me) get without IS lor. Still good, I always use it for church wedding!

tamiya_model · 3rd September 2006

Originally Posted by AReality

So your meaning of a good photograph == sharp pics?
Am I correct to say that?

.

Lolz, allows you to handhold (to certain limits) when you want sharp pics! Obviously there are times when you don't want that. Like when my friend was shooting fountain, I realised that with IS I could slow my shutter to achieve motion blur with IS, but without IS, my friend could not get that effect.

It is you who assumed and made that questioning conclusion.

Please don't use TS thread to question my photographic style, always got PM.

Splutter · 3rd September 2006

IS is good, especially for theatre works where settings couldbe like iso3200, f2.8 @ 1/15s. It all depends on how much you use it.
An added incentive is that the IS version is weather sealed.

JediForce4ever · 3rd September 2006

IS is not a must have.....

But a very big bonus...gives you an added insurance for picture sharpness.

yehosaphat · 3rd September 2006

Wow, thank you all for your comments and advises!

As mentioned, I believe most of you guys will recommend for the IS version. But quite frankly is the IS and ok the weather seal justifyable for the almost 1k difference?

Also, any bad experiencing hand-holding this type of 'heavy' lens?

JediForce4ever · 3rd September 2006

Hanholding this type of heavy lenses sure will get you tired at the end of the day...and give you a very heavy bag....

Halfmoon · 3rd September 2006

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever

Hanholding this type of heavy lenses sure will get you tired at the end of the day...and give you a very heavy bag....

And with the heavy gears, you also end up with heavy aching shoulders and arms!!!

yehosaphat · 3rd September 2006

huh... but i guess it depends from person to person ya...

speedblade · 4th September 2006

there is a solution to the weight problem..... http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=220062

kiwi2 · 4th September 2006

IS certainly works!

Those who say IS is craps is probably jumping to clonclusions with little experience of it, or they can't afford the lens -- sour grapes, or they simply dun need it so what the heck, might as well say IS is marketing craps from Canon.

Then there are those who will brag they dun need IS cos their technique is so "well-grounded" -- can shoot at 1/15 s at tele end! Duh... *doubts* Even if that were true, with IS, they would definitely be able to go even slower speeds.

f/2.8 or 2.8IS is difficult to answer cos it's not as if the diff in $ is little. U pay more u get more of cos. I think it's more like do u really need the IS. As simple eg, if with f/4 indoor you get shutter at ard 1/125, so with f/2.8 you can go to 1/250 (better chance of sharper pics), then that will do. But if u find u are doing mostly below 1/100 then maybe u need the IS.

And as some say, if can afford go for the IS. But if u really dun need it, then paying for the IS is sort of waste of money. Good thing Canon came up with the f/4.

Some say the f/2.8 non-IS is a tad sharper than the one with IS. I dunno cos I have only used the IS version and it's sharp.

Danntbt · 4th September 2006

Was using the 70-200IS, like it, but problem is with 1.6 crop on my 20D, can be cumbersome to use in terms of focal lengthin confined areas, so when the chance came to upgrade to 28-300IS with a little top-up, I took the plunge. Tested out at a dinner event, quiet a risk being the solo photog with important people as host and guests, results turned out great too, but have to process RAW files, taken of the more important moments. But do missed the F2.8, and will probably get one once I save up enough for it.

raptor84 · 4th September 2006

I also shoot mainly outdoors so my f/4 has been serving me well enough but there are times shooting indoors that i wished i had IS. My subjects dont keep still long so IS is not really useful for me but it would be nice to have. The only IS lens that i have used is the 100-400 IS. It was definately a lifesaver at the 400mm end as i did not carry a tripod.

My personal opinion is either f/4 or f/2.8 IS.

ST1100 · 4th September 2006

i very strongly recommend you borrow a 70-200/2.8 - any make/model - to try out for an event first. Coming from a 70-200/f4, the size and weight may throw you off quite a bit. Not only will you work slower, you can get tired much faster with the extra weight. Plus, whatever system you are using now to carry/swap lenses, you need to accomodate a slot for a much bigger lens.

If you're on 200mm most of the time, might want to consider a 200/2.8 prime. There's one in the BS going for $850. It is much smaller and lighter. i also highly recommend the 135/2, which i use in place of a 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. It's much easier to handle.

3rd September 2006	#1
yehosaphat Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: North Posts: 2,600	Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? Dear all, Just like to hear your views on the above. Tried to do a search in the forum but cant seem to find any similar discussions. Anyways, I hope those who own these lens can comment. I currently own a 70-200mm f4L and am very satisfied by the performance and bokeh of this lens. Usually, I do outdoor shoots and church events. It is during indoor events like in church, that I realised that most often I am shooting on the tele side of the lens and is always boosting up the ISO to compensate for a hand-holdable shutter speed. Not very nice.... So can you guys advise if i were to decide to upgrade to either of the above, which would you recommend? OF course many of you will say go for the IS! But my qn is does the IS version justify for the additional hundreds of dollars or will that one additional stop of light already suffice? Oh and the recent news about the 70-200mm f4L IS is not really an option as I would rather go for the 2.8 with that kind of money Thanks in advance!

3rd September 2006	#2
sehsuan Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,674	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? The IS version is very worth it.

3rd September 2006	#4
tamiya_model Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: HOME, duh... Posts: 492	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? I personally chose and have bought the IS version, despite others telling me that save the $$$ for the no IS version and spend it on a good tripod system or other lenses. Because, after using my first IS lens, the 17-85, I knew that IS was the way to go for me. The opportunities it opens up for you is great, and surprisingly, more keeper shots in my opinion. A senior of mine said that it is the user, not the lens and the IS thing is crap and I should go improve on my skills and bla, but when he got his IS lens, he too said that his keeper rate went up by 40%. Just to show you how useful it is. If you already have an IS lens, you know how good it is. Low shutter + low iso

3rd September 2006	#6
eng01170 Deregistered Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 251	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? Get the IS version.

3rd September 2006	#7
ShaoWei Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 142	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? By all Means IS assuming your budget allows, goes a long way when this lens is over a kilo and you're intending to handhold it throughout an event. Went for non-IS coz I couldn't afford it back then. You won't go wrong making this choice.

3rd September 2006	#8
TrailsofLife Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 8,492	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? Can afford get with IS, cannot afford (like me) get without IS lor. Still good, I always use it for church wedding! __________________ *trailsoflife photographyblog**

3rd September 2006	#10
Splutter Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Gim Boon Tai Posts: 2,819	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? IS is good, especially for theatre works where settings couldbe like iso3200, f2.8 @ 1/15s. It all depends on how much you use it. An added incentive is that the IS version is weather sealed. __________________ If you understand my works, it's photography. If you don't, it's art. SplutterPhotography\|flickr Last edited by Splutter; 3rd September 2006 at 08:56 PM.

3rd September 2006	#11
JediForce4ever Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Singapore, CanonGraphers.org Posts: 3,163	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? IS is not a must have..... But a very big bonus...gives you an added insurance for picture sharpness.

4th September 2006	#16
speedblade Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Bukit Panjang Posts: 848	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? there is a solution to the weight problem..... http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=220062

4th September 2006	#17
kiwi2 Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,253	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? IS certainly works! Those who say IS is craps is probably jumping to clonclusions with little experience of it, or they can't afford the lens -- sour grapes, or they simply dun need it so what the heck, might as well say IS is marketing craps from Canon. Then there are those who will brag they dun need IS cos their technique is so "well-grounded" -- can shoot at 1/15 s at tele end! Duh... doubts Even if that were true, with IS, they would definitely be able to go even slower speeds. f/2.8 or 2.8IS is difficult to answer cos it's not as if the diff in $ is little. U pay more u get more of cos. I think it's more like do u really need the IS. As simple eg, if with f/4 indoor you get shutter at ard 1/125, so with f/2.8 you can go to 1/250 (better chance of sharper pics), then that will do. But if u find u are doing mostly below 1/100 then maybe u need the IS. And as some say, if can afford go for the IS. But if u really dun need it, then paying for the IS is sort of waste of money. Good thing Canon came up with the f/4. Some say the f/2.8 non-IS is a tad sharper than the one with IS. I dunno cos I have only used the IS version and it's sharp.

4th September 2006	#18
Danntbt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: YCK Posts: 2,457	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? Was using the 70-200IS, like it, but problem is with 1.6 crop on my 20D, can be cumbersome to use in terms of focal lengthin confined areas, so when the chance came to upgrade to 28-300IS with a little top-up, I took the plunge. Tested out at a dinner event, quiet a risk being the solo photog with important people as host and guests, results turned out great too, but have to process RAW files, taken of the more important moments. But do missed the F2.8, and will probably get one once I save up enough for it.

4th September 2006	#19
raptor84 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 4,282	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? I also shoot mainly outdoors so my f/4 has been serving me well enough but there are times shooting indoors that i wished i had IS. My subjects dont keep still long so IS is not really useful for me but it would be nice to have. The only IS lens that i have used is the 100-400 IS. It was definately a lifesaver at the 400mm end as i did not carry a tripod. My personal opinion is either f/4 or f/2.8 IS. __________________ Pet Portrait Portfolio Stock Photos for sale

4th September 2006	#20
ST1100 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Singapore, Bedok Posts: 1,801	Re: Canon 70-200mm 2.8L or Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS? i very strongly recommend you borrow a 70-200/2.8 - any make/model - to try out for an event first. Coming from a 70-200/f4, the size and weight may throw you off quite a bit. Not only will you work slower, you can get tired much faster with the extra weight. Plus, whatever system you are using now to carry/swap lenses, you need to accomodate a slot for a much bigger lens. If you're on 200mm most of the time, might want to consider a 200/2.8 prime. There's one in the BS going for $850. It is much smaller and lighter. i also highly recommend the 135/2, which i use in place of a 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. It's much easier to handle.