70-200 L Questions

[gunihoon]

Hi guys,

Am thinking of getting the 70-200L 2.8. Heard something about the non-IS being sharper. Is that quite true? Also, heard that with the IS, it is equivalent of having a few more F-stops? Trying to warrant the extra $ for the IS. Tks!!

[jeff49er]

70-200 f2.8 IS is the ultimate in this class.

If u want to spend less then 70 200 f4 IS which cost $1800.

More info of these lens can be found in canoneos.com

[lsr792000]

I have the 70-200mm non IS. Not sure whether it is sharper then the IS. But definitely manageable.

[thinkvision]

I had 70-200/4 IS and 2.8 IS before. if travel and out shooting, F4 IS is perfect choice...
if you like events and want to make photo shooting as career, F2.8IS is not a bad choice...the best choice is F4 IS combined with 85/1.2L if money is not problem...

[dreamtheatre]

without knowing your exact application for this lens, perhaps I can 'blow up the picture' for you , as it were

IS f/2.8:
1) Most expensive
2) Not much weight difference with the non IS
3) Unless you always need to blow your photos up to A0 and beyond, dun think you need to worry about 'sharpness' with ANY of the lenses in this family.
4) Canon says it is eqv to having 3 more stops but this is reference only and is mainly designed for photogs that shoot from a moving platform, it was never developed to cure bad technique. (otherwise why most IS lenses are in the pro series..ehehe)

non-IS f/2.8:
1) IMHO, if anyone is prepared to spend this much and is shopping at 'this level' , might as well spend more for the IS version. BUT, there are folks who need this version. Otherwise it would have been discontinued when the IS version came out.

f/4 IS:
1) This is a great choice, wished it had came out earlier (too bad for me) .
2) Light weight, compact . Things you need to be more mobile.
3) One stop difference? Most of the time, this will matter if you do flash photogy.

f/4:
1) I was told this is the cheapest 'white lens'. So, performance V price ratio is very high
2) No IS, so I had to work on improving my technique and of course, avoid situatons whrer I have to go down below 1/125 @ 200mm. heheeee.

Hope this helps

As mentioned, each version gives great optical performance. So dun worry too much about it. Whichever one you end up with, you know it is gonna perform at the highest level. Good luck for your search.

DT

[gunihoon]

Tks for all the replies!

Am actually buying this lens more for shooting indoor events thus considering probably the F2.8 w or w/o IS.

Not much of weight diff between the 2?? hmm... that's a good draw to buy the IS one haahhaa

[ahbeng]

the non IS is no longer in production and you can only get it 2nd hand. since you want to shoot indoor, IS is probably a better choice.

[the6thday]

unless you are seriously constrained by budget, get the IS. other than shooting with a tripod/monopod, it'd be quite hard to get usable images indoors. then you would have wasted $2k or $x to sell and upgrade.

[zhikang]

bro i would suggest non-IS + monopod. Even with IS, the lens is still a heavy monster for handheld shooting. x.X

[Dream Merchant]

I once had that thought too ... about the non-IS version being sharper, and I found a review/test that showed that the non-IS version was very slightly sharper - IF you shoot on slow ISO film. On digital, there was no difference since all digitals capture at a low 72 'dpi' and you have to postprocess anyway.

If you need the added versatility of IS in indoor low-light conditions, then the IS version pays for itself in terms of keeper shots. What the6thday said.

Have fun with your new lens!

[danmic]

I uses my 70-200 f2.8L IS alot, and being someone who is not very physically inclined, I find the IS a god-sent due to the weight of the lens. I did 'borrowed' a non-IS version before, and personally, I dun find any noticable diff in sharpness between the two, but maybe it is juz me.

dan

[miniUltraman]

I own a 70-200f4L non-IS... then migrate to 70-200f2.8L IS. I guess that is the best lens of its class. Cons - Heavy + I usually stop-down to f4. f2.8 is not easy to use (I am a novice)... and I usually get 1 eye sharper than another one due to the shallow DOF. And my experience was after holding that lens for a 2 hour stage performance... my hand really shakes when I try to sms thereafter.. (I thought my arms are strong enough for 1.47kg but I was wrong)... I am considering moving to 70-200f4L IS as a more practical choice
Just to share my experience as a reference... (Btw, as for the 70-200f2.8L non IS.. err.. I won't consider.. cos' for that weight, you really need IS) But if you have decided on the f2.8L IS, go for it... it has such a smooth bokeh and sharpness that you will love it for sure

[FilterFunk]

i was a 2.8 non-IS user for about 10-11months. it is definitely hand holdable. a monopod will help alot though.

the IS version, although being abt 200g heavier, is significantly heavier when i tried on my friend's copy a few times over the 10-11months or so.

[user111]

final verdict: all the 4 versions are sharp lenses in general unless u get a lemon, there is no need to pick hairs over which is marginally sharper. that said, buy the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS for the best balance between price and aperture and use it happily forever until it breaks down which will never happen

[jesbert]

Originally Posted by gunihoon Hi guys, Am thinking of getting the 70-200L 2.8. Heard something about the non-IS being sharper. Is that quite true? Also, heard that with the IS, it is equivalent of having a few more F-stops? Trying to warrant the extra $ for the IS. Tks!!

adding to all comments above, non-IS is not weather seal, ie. "dust-proof and moisture-proof", may not matter in most situations but at sometime, you may wish it is ..