Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM vs IS

goslayer

goslayer

Messages
459
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am thinking about getting a 70-200mm lens and was wondering if there was much advantage in getting the IS version or not. I like the idea that I can have IS when I need it and switch it of when I dont, but is it really worth the extra money?

Cheers
Greg
 
really depends on what you are shooting.
the IS is handy in low light, however i am sure you know this wont help freezing any more motion than the non IS.

would i have it, yes, as you say if you dont need it dont switch it on.
 
Thanks


I have also been told that the Non IS is a bit sharper at 200mm.
 
Not to fussed about the extra wieght, just wondering if the IS was worth the extra money?

Cheers

Oakey22 said:
does the wieght of a lens bother you? the NON-IS is a lot lot lot lighter than the IS version.
Click to expand...
 
Why not try shooting with your existing lenses with IS turned off and see if this affects your keeper ratio?
 
Not sure this is helpful but I enjoy shooting things with some movement, people, candids, kids, sports, that sort of stuff.

If I want to take product shots, details for weddings, stuff like that a tripod is essential to me, not IS.

Haven't found a use for IS yet that warrants the extra coin, but that's just me.
 
ColinB147 said:
There's a great article on IS here I discovered a few minutes ago. Might help your decision.
Click to expand...

^^^ (y) Bob Atkins knows his stuff, and excellent examples.

IS is a brilliant invention. I just paid a stack more for the IS version of the 70-200L 4 IS, and it's money well spent if you want sharp. Especially when you're buying a heavy lens like the f/2.8 version.

You already have two IS lenses. I think you know the answer ;) And the IS version is at least as good as the non-IS; it's got a load more glass in it to make sure.
 
my 2.8 IS just arrived, and i havent tested it out yet but for me the decision was a no brainer. I needed a fast lens, and I have terribly shaky hands. This was an investment for me and I am really looking forward to putting it to good use!
 
The new 70-200 f2.8 HIS (hybrid IS - the latest Canon thing) is rumoured to be announced any day now and the old 70-200 f2.8 IS is hard to find in distribution...

Basically, a new much improved version is about to be released which either means you are very excited that its going to be better, or depressed at the fact that its going to be more expensive...
 
Oakey22 said:
does the wieght of a lens bother you? the NON-IS is a lot lot lot lighter than the IS version.
Click to expand...

It actually isn't much heavier, about 100 grams from memory. The real difference is f4 to f2.8, the latter being twice the weight of the former.
 
desantnik said:
The new 70-200 f2.8 HIS (hybrid IS - the latest Canon thing) is rumoured to be announced any day now and the old 70-200 f2.8 IS is hard to find in distribution...

Basically, a new much improved version is about to be released which either means you are very excited that its going to be better, or depressed at the fact that its going to be more expensive...
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that H-IS is substantially better than regular IS, beyond macro use.

Edit: on the weight thing, the extra lens elements in the 2.8 IS version put the weight up a lot. It goes from 1310g to 1570g. Difference 260g, 20%.
 
it is quite a heavy lens, but for me the weight isnt an issue. I'm 6"4 and built like a sherman tank... lol
 
I am still pondering between the 70-200 F4L IS and the F2.8L non IS.
Both are right on the edge of my budget. I just can't decide :shrug::bang:
 
jnO said:
I am still pondering between the 70-200 F4L IS and the F2.8L non IS.
Both are right on the edge of my budget. I just can't decide :shrug::bang:
Click to expand...

Unless you really need f/2.8, and cannot substitute that benefit with higher ISO or maybe flash, then the f/4 IS version is better in every respect.
 
HoppyUK said:
I'm not convinced that H-IS is substantially better than regular IS, beyond macro use.
Click to expand...

No, neither am I, however the overhaul should make the 70-200 f2.8 sharper than the f4 version (which only was because the f4 one had an overhaul and the 2.8 didn't)
 
desantnik said:
No, neither am I, however the overhaul should make the 70-200 f2.8 sharper than the f4 version (which only was because the f4 one had an overhaul and the 2.8 didn't)
Click to expand...

Yes, it will be interesting, but I think more from a technical point of view than from a practical one. The f/2.8 IS lens got a complete reworking over the non-IS, with five more elements (hence the weight).

Since this lens is so central to Canon's core professional line up, I think they'll give it everything - fancy new coatings and H-IS etc. But it's already a stonkingly good lens. If I was in the market for one, and I was a few weeks ago (bought the f/4 IS in preference) I wouldn't wait for the new one, if and whenever it's announced.

Whatever happens, it will be a while before it's available, and at full RRP at least initially.

All IMHO of course ;)
 
Yes, it will be interesting!

Apparently Canon are busy upgunning all their "pro" stuff to be ready for the 2012 olympics...
 
I used the 70-200 IS yesterday for a wedding, the quality is phenomenal!
 
jnO said:
I am still pondering between the 70-200 F4L IS and the F2.8L non IS. Both are right on the edge of my budget. I just can't decide :shrug::bang:
Click to expand...

2.8 will provide speed (obviously) but also subject isolation. I went for the F4 version because of the IS but hardly ever use it because of the lack of isolation.
 
HoppyUK said:
Edit: on the weight thing, the extra lens elements in the 2.8 IS version put the weight up a lot. It goes from 1310g to 1570g. Difference 260g, 20%.
Click to expand...
But since few people use a lens without a camera body attached to it that % figure is not that meaningful. Stick the lens on the front of a 1D3, which is 1335g including battery, and suddenly the % increase is under 10%. If you were to have a 580EX on top then the %age is even less, and really not worth consideration, in my opinion.

If you need IS, and f/2.8, then you need them. The weight is a secondary and quite trivial factor, in my opinion. There's no way I'd let a piffling 260g stand in the way of getting the lens I want/need.

Since I'm about 30kg overweight I think I should look at reducing my own weight before I worry about a few grams on a lens :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Unless you really need f/2.8, and cannot substitute that benefit with higher ISO or maybe flash, then the f/4 IS version is better in every respect.
Click to expand...

pearce_jj said:
2.8 will provide speed (obviously) but also subject isolation. I went for the F4 version because of the IS but hardly ever use it because of the lack of isolation.
Click to expand...

Kieron Nevison said:
Another thing to think about is that unlike the non IS the IS version is weather sealed
Click to expand...

All good things to think over.

It's being bought for my safari next year primarily. The F4 IS was teetering at the top because I do have fairly shakey hands, however as I will be in a truck mostly I'll have a bag / monopod to rest on.
Pfft, I don't know :bonk:
 
As well as the faster shutter or lower ISO that f/2.8 offers, and the reduced DOF, f/2.8 also provides more accurate focus, a brighter viewfinder, with manual focus a bit easier and means that, if you must, you can use a 2X teleconverter and still retain AF, even on entry level bodies.
 
tdodd said:
But since few people use a lens without a camera body attached to it that % figure is not that meaningful. Stick the lens on the front of a 1D3, which is 1335g including battery, and suddenly the % increase is under 10%. If you were to have a 580EX on top then the %age is even less, and really not worth consideration, in my opinion.

If you need IS, and f/2.8, then you need them. The weight is a secondary and quite trivial factor, in my opinion. There's no way I'd let a piffling 260g stand in the way of getting the lens I want/need.

Since I'm about 30kg overweight I think I should look at reducing my own weight before I worry about a few grams on a lens :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you Tim. You are overweight :LOL: Sorry :D

I also agree that a couple of hundred grams is not a deal breaker.

jnO said:
All good things to think over.

It's being bought for my safari next year primarily. The F4 IS was teetering at the top because I do have fairly shakey hands, however as I will be in a truck mostly I'll have a bag / monopod to rest on.

Pfft, I don't know :bonk:
Click to expand...

I think you do know. And you want the f/2.8 IS ;) I would hate to spend that much on a lens and still have that nagging doubt, but if it's mainly for a big holiday, maybe hire one for a couple of weeks?

I've never used StewartR's LensesForHire service, but lots of folks do and I only hear good things. Very reasonable prices, too. Get a 500/4 while you're at it :)
 
HoppyUK said:
I think you do know. And you want the f/2.8 IS ;) I would hate to spend that much on a lens and still have that nagging doubt, but if it's mainly for a big holiday, maybe hire one for a couple of weeks?

I've never used StewartR's LensesForHire service, but lots of folks do and I only hear good things. Very reasonable prices, too. Get a 500/4 while you're at it :)
Click to expand...

I do know what you mean but I am pushing myself up from the cost of an F4L non IS already, the additional £300 for the F2.8 IS is probably a deal breaker :(

I am pretty sure I can borrow all 3 (he never sells any of his glass so has quite a collection) from someone I know on another forum who lives locally, or at least spend some time with them to get a feel for them.
 
just took my one out for a spin at lunch time. Ofcourse all the tourists were turning green with envy when I was shooting the tower of london and the beefeater guards. I quite like the weight of the lens + 40d, it feels solid and encourages me to move with it carefully, rather than throw it around like the 350d + nifty fifty (poor camera!)
 
I have the f2.8L IS version and it is a cracking lens. Only you know your budget, and truthfully speaking, is ANY of our gear worth the money we all pay for it. Don't spend time worrying if it is worth the extra, or about a new version coming out. If you want it, and have the funds to buy it, and your wife gives her approval (Sometimes flowers and a nice meal, or a new hat, and all manner of creepy grovelly things help in this department) then just buy it and get on with enjoying it, for that is what you WILL do.....enjoy it. The IS works brilliantly on the occassions you need it.
 
Thanks for all the feedback andd advice guys,

I have gone with the 2.8 IS and it should be delivered tommorrow:):love:
 
goslayer said:
Thanks for all the feedback andd advice guys,

I have gone with the 2.8 IS and it should be delivered tommorrow:):love:
Click to expand...

What did you pay and where did you buy it from? I'm in the market for the IS version hopefully :p
 
Got it from Kerso, If you PM him he will send you a price list.


Laudrup said:
What did you pay and where did you buy it from? I'm in the market for the IS version hopefully :p
Click to expand...
 
Yeah Kerso sent me a price list, was thinking of buying one as I rented the non-IS version from lensesforhire and got L lens lust! Hope you enjoy your new lens, I'm jealous :D
 
When you have played with it let us know your thoughts. As I have stated previously, it is a cracking lens. I got mine from Kerso and he is good to deal with.
 
It Has just arrived, I will have a play later and will report back. I also got from Kerso, great lens at a great price with super fast delivery.



Bobby Canon said:
When you have played with it let us know your thoughts. As I have stated previously, it is a cracking lens. I got mine from Kerso and he is good to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
You won't be disappointed...I'm absolutely sure of that! Fantastic bit of kit and you'll enjoy your photagraphy more because the results WILL be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top