Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS or no IS

Big_Ham

Big_Ham

Messages
1,183
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Is the IS on this lens really worth the extra £400 odd quid. I can't really afford it. Just wondered how much of a difference it would really make at 200mm since it's not a massive length....

Thanks

Chris
 
When I switch IS off at 200mm I feel like I'm drunk. :lol:
 
It is probably not worth the extra £400 to be honest, especially if you are shotting motorsport etc. I bought the non-IS version for exactly this reason and have never regretted it.

However, the IS version is worth more in the long run as more people will probably be after it, especially for portraiture etc.

DB
 
A lot of the stuff I tend to do is more action based. I just can't see how they can justify £400 extra for the IS.
 
I have an 80-200 so no IS (wasn't invented :D), but often wish I had it for gigs ect when I drop the shutter below 1/50th which makes hand holding 'interesting'
 
Big_Ham said:
A lot of the stuff I tend to do is more action based. I just can't see how they can justify £400 extra for the IS.
Click to expand...
I guess it's like justifying £700+ extra for the L. I compared my lens next to a £60 Tamron and could barely see any difference...
 
Kryptix said:
I guess it's like justifying £700+ extra for the L. I compared my lens next to a £60 Tamron and could barely see any difference...
Click to expand...

Touché.

In low light the F/4-5.6 of my current lens is far too slow, that's the main reason.
 
Big_Ham said:
A lot of the stuff I tend to do is more action based. I just can't see how they can justify £400 extra for the IS.
Click to expand...

When you need the shot but cant get it without IS then i assume it justifies itself:shrug:
 
Kryptix said:
I guess it's like justifying £700+ extra for the L. I compared my lens next to a £60 Tamron and could barely see any difference...
Click to expand...

I compared my L to both the tamron and Sigma and both the copies of the sigma i had were very slow an inaccurite AF & the tamron was noisy, for an extra £200 i got the Lglass and never looked back.

AM action based wouldnt mind the IS for portraits which i've started to get into but not the beall and end all.

Big_Ham said:
Touché.

In low light the F/4-5.6 of my current lens is far too slow, that's the main reason.
Click to expand...

Have to agree the f2.8 is definatly worth the money.
 
Kryptix said:
I guess it's like justifying £700+ extra for the L. I compared my lens next to a £60 Tamron and could barely see any difference...
Click to expand...

That may be the difference between your f/4 but certainly not my f/2.8!

DB
 
I find the IS on the 70-300 much better than the IS on the 28-135. For the 300 I think it was worth it.
The 300 has 2 modes of IS, normal, ie. X/Y IS, and panning IS, it only performs it in the Y axis, which would be usable for motorsports I think.
If you want to see how good it is, go to try it in a shop, set the lens to around 70, (which for me is a neutral zoom, i.e. left eye can see the same as the right eye), have your right eye looking through the viewfinder, and the left eye open whilst focused on a remote object. Sway a bit from left to right. Then press and hold the shutter half-way, so that the IS activates, and try the same again.
The feeling you get of your left eye and right eye no-longer following each other, a bit like having more than a couple of pints!
If it has mode 2, try a coulple of panning shots, and see what kind of motion blur you can get, are your lines perfectly horizontal now?
 
Fancy a 70-200mm f/2.8 for the extra stops over my 70-300 f/4-5.6, so I don't really care about the IS.

But the 70-200mm f/2 IS is a 2001 design, compared to the non-IS 70-200mm f/2 which was released in 1995.

I can't help thinking that ought to make a difference, even if the IS isn't a consideration.
 
Strolls said:
Fancy a 70-200mm f/2.8 for the extra stops over my 70-300 f/4-5.6, so I don't really care about the IS.

But the 70-200mm f/2 IS is a 2001 design, compared to the non-IS 70-200mm f/2 which was released in 1995.

I can't help thinking that ought to make a difference, even if the IS isn't a consideration.
Click to expand...
The none IS is sharper.
 
the problem with non IS is that you spend too much time wondering if that missed shot would have been saved with an IS lens

on paper the no IS is sharper then the IS version but in real life the IS may save more shots for you - it depends what you do

I had a non IS from new and the sold it after around 2 years for new IS version....

is it better? - I'm still not sure 6 months on...
 
The extra cost of IS on that lens is bewildering. How come you can get a brilliant little lens like the very sharp EF-S 55-250mm, with 4-stops IS, for £220? Or EF 70-300mm IS for £430?

I wouldn't do without IS, but you have to need f/2.8 really badly to go for that.
 
HoppyUK said:
The extra cost of IS on that lens is bewildering. How come you can get a brilliant little lens like the very sharp EF-S 55-250mm, with 4-stops IS, for £220? Or EF 70-300mm IS for £430?

I wouldn't do without IS, but you have to need f/2.8 really badly to go for that.
Click to expand...
There is more to the 2.8IS than just the IS system, it is also weather sealed wheras the none IS is not.
 
malla1962 said:
The none IS is sharper.
Click to expand...
I'm really surprised that Canon didn't manage to make the IS just as good. They had 6 years of experience and newer technology, and the IS surely only requires one additional lens element (or articulation of an existing element). Reader reviews at FredMiranda.com seem to concur with your reply, but it just doesn't make sense to me that the later lens has poorer IQ. :cuckoo:

sportysnaps said:
the problem with non IS is that you spend too much time wondering if that missed shot would have been saved with an IS lens ...

I had a non IS from new and the sold it after around 2 years for new IS version...
Click to expand...
LOL. Considering the price difference I'll have to wonder a couple of years myself!

HoppyUK said:
... the very sharp EF-S 55-250mm, with 4-stops IS, for £220? Or EF 70-300mm IS for £430?

I wouldn't do without IS, but you have to need f/2.8 really badly to go for that.
Click to expand...
When I first started photography I thought of IS as quite a big deal, but I'm now tending to admire fast glass instead - as a huge generalisation, on some occasions either IS or a wide aperture will equally "save the shot", on other occasions only fast glass will do it. I'm tending to think there are few occasions where IS will get a shot that a fast lens won't.

Both the EF 70-300mm IS & the EF-S 55-250mm are f/4 - f/5.6. For me the extra range, price & excellent quality of the EF 70-300mm IS would (and did) win over the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS, but shootin' bunnies, I don't believe that is fast enough. I've still got the EF 70-300mm IS, but I'd really love an EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

I have one landscape-y shot in particular here that was indeed saved by IS (and resting on a good surface). I don't know if it could have been any better, but I still wish I had gotten the tripod out the boot of the car & used it, instead. I was an inexperienced photographer at the time (and still am) but I want to be the kind of photographer who is disciplined enough to use a tripod whenever there's doubt. You can be more sure of a tripod than you can be of IS.

I think there's a tendency to think of image-stabilisation technology as a silver bullet. Sure, you can get the EF-S 18-55mm IS for £130, so you probably wouldn't pay £100 or even £80 for the non-IS version (assuming it was still available new at those sorts of prices), but there's a reason that fast glass still sells at these higher prices.

malla1962 said:
There is more to the 2.8IS than just the IS system, it is also weather sealed wheras the none IS is not.
Click to expand...
I've learned something today - I had assumed all L lenses were weather sealed to the highest standards.

Stroller.
 
i invested in the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, and don't regret it one little bit, it truly is (in my opinion) the best lens, for anything and everything. i use it for fashion, wedding, portraiture, music, reportage, anything really... just pop a t.c. on it and good to go for longer distance.
 
Strolls said:
I'm really surprised that Canon didn't manage to make the IS just as good. They had 6 years of experience and newer technology, and the IS surely only requires one additional lens element (or articulation of an existing element). Reader reviews at FredMiranda.com seem to concur with your reply, but it just doesn't make sense to me that the later lens has poorer IQ. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

I think the idea that the non-IS lens is better is a rumour put about by people that don't have IS! Sure, Canon would be mad, and indeed the MTFs that they publish show that if anything, the IS lens is better at the short end, towards the edges at maximum aperture.

Strolls said:
When I first started photography I thought of IS as quite a big deal, but I'm now tending to admire fast glass instead - as a huge generalisation, on some occasions either IS or a wide aperture will equally "save the shot", on other occasions only fast glass will do it. I'm tending to think there are few occasions where IS will get a shot that a fast lens won't.
Click to expand...

I find there are plenty of occasions when IS will get the shot when fast glass will not - when you want a decent amount of depth of field! It's a personal thing, but I usually want more DoF than less. On the occasions that I'm struggling for shutter speed, it's usually because I want more DoF, or have got a long lens on. IS is great for that.

When the light is bad and I've run out of ISO, I don't hesitate to use flash. I always take a 580EX flash, and that gets used (fill-in, bounce, LumiQuest) more often than, say, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. When I do use that at full bore, DoF is frustratingly thin. Of course, it depends what you shoot and how you like it and I wouldn't be without fast primes, it's just that more often than not I can find a better alternative.

BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that lenses like the 55-250 and 70-300 are directly comparable to these L lenses, or in any way a replacement - just making a point about the price of IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top