Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS or not?

Dervish99

Dervish99

Messages
1,228
Name
Russ
Edit My Images
No
Hi i am soon to be upgrading my cracking 70-200 F4 (non IS) for a 2.8 as i seem to use it mostly for portraits, and so i want that shallower DOF. My main question is do i really need the IS function, or will the non IS be fine? With my current F4 not having IS i am vering towards the non IS 2.8, but obviously the 2.8 is bigger and heavier, so i am not sure if the IS is a good way of counterballencing the handling differences. It's going on a 5D2 so needing the IS due to slow shutter speeds shouldnt really be an issue, as i just crank up the ISO. In a perfect world i would just get the IS model, but you know how the bank managers like to minimise spend :thinking:

Also are there any issues with one version being sharper than the others?

cheers
 
I have the non IS version which I use for wildlife and occasionally landscapes. I generally use it on a monopod for wildlife and I have to say I have never missed the IS.

I can't compare sharpness with any other version, but belive me when I say the non IS is razor sharp, even wide open.
 
Hand held would be fine assuming the reciprocal rule is followed. My hands are cream crackered with arthritis so a monopod suits me.
 
I've not missed IS on my 2.8, and I really don't know why people make such a big deal about the weight - it just isn't that heavy. It feels nicely balanced on the 5d2, I don't think you'd have any problem.
 
I've had a f4 non IS version and it was very sharp even wide open and very easy to handle, however I hankered for a f2.8 IS version and ended up getting a MkI a while ago. While it's not perfect wide open it's no slouch either and when used on my 5D3 it's very good. I've now decided to put my MkI up for sale http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=420392 and get a MkII instead. I'm not too bothered if it doesn't sell though as it's a cracker of a lens. This was taken with the 550D also listed and the MkI lens at f2.8 and it's better than this on my 5D3. It was taken at 1/125, f2.8 and ISO 100 at 70mm handheld.

7542063134_2af4ae2a11_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Mods, if I've broken any rules I apologise, please delete any part of the post that does.
 
Last edited:
Hi. I have the IS version, bought it before I got into sport. I turn off the IS for sport. However, its nice to know its there if I need it for other sorts of photography. The lens is a bit on the heavy side, but it does feel 'the biz'. Whether its worth the extra is moot, though.
 
I've just traded my EF 70-200 f4 non IS for the 2.8 IS MkII. I always thought the f4 was sharp but the 2.8 moves the IQ on a step. The IS is so quiet that at first I thought it was switched off. Was always a bit sceptical about the advantage of the 2.8 over the f4. I'm not now. And the build quality is absolutely superb. Better than the f4.
 
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii, and use a neck strap, never had any problems with strain on the body, makes your neck hurt after a while, it is a fairly heavy lens.

I upgraded this from the f/4 is, there is a massive difference on the clarity of the photos.
 
Chriswallace1 said:
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii, and use a neck strap, never had any problems with strain on the body, makes your neck hurt after a while, it is a fairly heavy lens.

I upgraded this from the f/4 is, there is a massive difference on the clarity of the photos, definitely worth spending the extra money
Click to expand...
 
I think it's simple, if you can afford the IS go for it, If you can't afford the IS but 2.8 is important to you. get the non-IS. They're both cracking lenses - an upgrade to the IS is on my to-do list, but nowhere near the top.
 
It really is down to whether you'll be using it handheld a lot. If you intend to use it mostly for studio then you'll get away with no IS but I always consider IS a necessity in any lens I use that's 200 or more.

I had the mki and the mkii. The mkii is a definite step up but the mki is still superb. It was used for years by professionals as the go to lens and didn't suddenly become rubbish overnight because the mkii came out. They're all great lenses though. I'm sure you'll be happy with whichever one you do chose in the end.
 
Chriswallace1 said:
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii, and use a neck strap, never had any problems with strain on the body, makes your neck hurt after a while, it is a fairly heavy lens.

I upgraded this from the f/4 is, there is a massive difference on the clarity of the photos.
Click to expand...

Thank you Chris

I had the 70-200mm non IS on a 7D the reason i asked was the collar that the lens attaches with always seemed to strain when the camera was lens down.

I had a real bad health time sold all my gear and then could not do without when i felt a bit better and bought back in.

I considered a f2.8 and bought the f4 much easier for carry but now i have a 5d3 keep thinking maybe should go the f2.8 route.

Must admit the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 looks like fun and for a full frame has more reach.

Anyway glad that the 70-200mm does not strain the body with all bodies

Thanks

Allan
 
Like Phil says, if you can afford the IS version then go for it but if not the non IS is just as good IQ wise. I have the IS version and have recently thought about "upgrading" to the MKII but I can't see how it can be much sharper tbh, I know everyone says it is but my MKI is pretty damned good.

Both of these are shot at f2.8 on my 50D



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top