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


Status
Not open for further replies.

Barrios

Senior Member
May 19, 2002
715
0
16
57
Visit site
#1
Thinking of getting this blardy ex lens, need a second or maybe third or fourth..... opinion before committing. Anyone?
 

mylau

New Member
Jan 19, 2002
1,019
0
0
33
#2
Damn good! Go and get it! Best Zoom L lens that I ever used.
 

Barrios

Senior Member
May 19, 2002
715
0
16
57
Visit site
#5
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?
 

Barrios

Senior Member
May 19, 2002
715
0
16
57
Visit site
#6
btw, CP quoted me $3100; AP $3120. Where can be cheaper? What's the gray market price for that?
 

Bluestrike

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
4,784
0
0
41
There lor~
bluestrike.clubsnap.org
#7
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.
 

Barrios

Senior Member
May 19, 2002
715
0
16
57
Visit site
#8
hard to come by a 2nd hand non-IS version under $1.6K. If condition is good, no harm paying.
 

Adam Goi

ClubSNAP Idol
Staff member
#9
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 ;)
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
41
shashinki.com
#10
Not taking into consideration the IS, both mounted on tripod...is the IS version better than the non-IS in term of optic quality?
 

Barrios

Senior Member
May 19, 2002
715
0
16
57
Visit site
#11
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?
 

Richard

Senior Member
Jan 16, 2002
522
0
16
#12
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...
 

mylau

New Member
Jan 19, 2002
1,019
0
0
33
#18
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
 

crazyhorse

New Member
Mar 20, 2002
27
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#20
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.......
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom