To IS or not to IS (70-200)

[harvardian]

Ok,

I am an amateur photographer (means mostly family pics), but I like high (est) quality. I am getting a EOS-10D and have my sights on a 70-200L. My questions are these:

1) Do I really need the IS? (Mostly hand held shots)
2) If I don't get the IS, should I just get the Sigma 70-200 APO?

I am planning on getting the 24-70L for the second lens.

Thanks,

Dale

[tikkeltokkel]

I was an amateur and jumped in the deep end , so now i have to call myself a pro!? i changed from a nikon system to the canon 10D 70-200 2.8 (was going to go for the IS till the last day ((literally)) but was talked out of it .. the camera store guy said there was a flaw in the IS of the 70-200 ... in his opinion the IS version of this lens wasnt as good optically as the non-IS ) I listened to him saved $500 and bought 1 gig of memory instead .. i have a steady hand and strong arms (two prerequisites to owning the canon glass. i might need the is one day but till then... I am also going to get the 24-70 as a second lens ... that is a tough choice ... sigma tokina and tamron all get good reviews .. i wish they had the 28-70 2.8 still available!!!

[harvardian]

Thanks,

more questions...

Are you happy with the lens? Do you notice any jitter induced blur?

Is the Canon 28-70L really a better lens than the 24-70L?

Thanks,

Dale

[Longwatcher]

If you do hand held shots a lot, Image Stab. is a big help against non-moving targets, posed people or if you are on a not so stable platform. If shooting people in action, not as much help as you need to bumb up the shutter speed more then anything else.

I am a big fan of IS, but end up turning it off a lot.

If turned ON it may degrade the overall quality, but if turned OFF it should have very little or no effect versus non-IS glass. At least from the way I can see Canon does the IS.

Me I plan on getting the IS version of the 70-200/2.8 because I love having IS on my 28-135, 75-300 and 100-400. I probably won't use it a lot, but will be really glad to have it in certain situations.

Just my opinion

[tikkeltokkel]

I am over the moon with the lens.. had it about 2 weeks and the lens i had before was a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ("two touch") so i didnt neccesarily take a huge jump up but the difference with my current combo compared to slide even is great. Digital is not far behind film already ... imagine the megapixel count in 2 or 3 years!!! I really hope that my next lens is as awesome!

[Arnie]

I don't know if its true or just an illusion, but i observed that digital camera (10D and D60) is much more sensitive to shake over film based cameras. So, IS is really a big help especially in situations when you don't have time to setup a tripod to take the shot.

If cost is not a problem go IS all the way!

[mikeg]

Hi,

I personnally bought a 70-200 2.8 Sigma 1.5 year ago. For the money, I think it is a great lens. (I came from a 75-300 IS Canon) Sharpness was excellent.
But as I shoot fashion shows @200mm I had quite a lot of blurred pics.
So I decided to go for 70-200 IS and in my case (not daylight) it made a huge difference.

MikeG

[defordphoto]

I have the 100-400L IS and the 28-135IS. When I get my 70-200 it will have IS. I don't use it alot, but it can be a lifesaver when you need it. Just my $.02...

[pwagner]

The 70-200 f2.8 will work with the 2x teleconverter--and for $275 the teleconverter seems like a bargain. When you're shooting 400mm handheld (like I do with my 100-400) you are definitely going to want the IS lens.