Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM reviews?

  1. #1

    Default Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM reviews?

    Thinking of getting this blardy ex lens, need a second or maybe third or fourth..... opinion before committing. Anyone?

  2. #2

    Default

    Damn good! Go and get it! Best Zoom L lens that I ever used.

  3. #3

    Default

    Originally posted by mylau
    Damn good! Go and get it! Best Zoom L lens that I ever used.
    Hmm.. when did you get the IS version?

  4. #4

    Default

    becoz' it is too good ... dun think pple will sell it away ...
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

  5. #5

    Default

    i know it's gonna burn a damn big hole in my pocket, just to play safe mine is a good choice. A cheaper one would be the non-IS version. But what the heck, wanna get, get a better one right?

  6. #6

    Default

    btw, CP quoted me $3100; AP $3120. Where can be cheaper? What's the gray market price for that?

  7. #7

    Default

    Originally posted by Barrios
    i know it's gonna burn a damn big hole in my pocket, just to play safe mine is a good choice. A cheaper one would be the non-IS version. But what the heck, wanna get, get a better one right?
    The diff in price will let most think twice. A 2nd hand Non-IS version will cost abt half the price of a new IS version.

  8. #8

    Default

    hard to come by a 2nd hand non-IS version under $1.6K. If condition is good, no harm paying.

  9. #9
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Hi Barrios...the quality of the lens has never been questioned however if I am to buy it, I'd consider the following...

    If I am rich where money is no object or I can make $$ out of photography, i.e. I'm being paid for my services, I won't hesitate to make such an investment.

    Having owned 2 IS lenses, I've learnt that IS does not eliminate camera shake altogether although it does help to 'cheat' the law of natural physics by shooting @ slightly slower shutterspeeds w/o tripod...but don't expect any dramas!

    However having said that, it does not necessarily ensure better photography in terms of composition and such...IS doesn't address them at all!

    However, given that I only shoot for interest, willing to spend a bit and really need a quality zoom, I'd probably go for a used 70-200 f/2.8 which is roughly half the price of the IS version...

    That's my take

  10. #10

    Default

    Not taking into consideration the IS, both mounted on tripod...is the IS version better than the non-IS in term of optic quality?
    DR KOH KHO KING

  11. #11

    Default

    Thanks Adam for your contribution. I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake. It would be a great plus to be able to handhold it and shoot at 1/60s under low-light.

    Anyone has hands-on experience with the IS version willing to contribute?

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by Barrios
    Thanks Adam for your contribution. I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake.
    Heh. You'll be surprised...

  13. #13

    Default

    cough cough.

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...&threadid=7615

    Originally posted by Richard


    Heh. You'll be surprised...

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx
    cough cough.

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...&threadid=7615

    cough. Got more actually. cough.

    Regards
    CK

  15. #15
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Originally posted by Barrios
    I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake.
    erm...I used to be one of those 'suckers'

  16. #16
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    cough. Got more actually. cough.

    Regards
    CK
    ...got blood some more!

  17. #17
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Originally posted by Kho King
    Not taking into consideration the IS, both mounted on tripod...is the IS version better than the non-IS in term of optic quality?
    The last time I heard, there's no observable difference...

  18. #18

    Default

    Originally posted by Bluestrike

    Hmm.. when did you get the IS version?
    just bought recently, used for many shoots already, very sharp and contrasty lens

  19. #19

    Default

    Originally posted by mylau


    just bought recently, used for many shoots already, very sharp and contrasty lens
    Post and see leh....
    Maybe we shld take it out and do a comparsion!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Originally posted by Barrios
    I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake. It would be a great plus to be able to handhold it and shoot at 1/60s under low-light.
    Heh, I thought that way on the first photo session a few weeks after I bought my 28-135mm lens, and used shutter speeds of 1/8 and lower. After I got back my prints.......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •