Must ask a relative newbie question

[editted]

Got my 10D recently; one of the lenses from my Canon A2 works great; the zoom/tele (quantary) does NOT!

Now looking at the EF 70-200 2.8L for my landscape/sports photogs as a NEW digital zoom/tele.

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

Do I go for the older (read cheaper) version or the IS version (considerably more pocket pain)? I've been warned off the IS by one professional sports photographer as "unnecessary" in a 70-200. I've been told I'm wasting my money on ANY Canon lense when I could get a secondary manufacturer's version cheaper.

HELP on both counts appreciated!!

[RichardtheSane]

editted wrote:
I've been told I'm wasting my money on ANY Canon lense when I could get a secondary manufacturer's version cheaper.

OK, slap whoever told you that, clearly they don't have a huge amount of experience with canon lenses.
There are a few exceptions but in most cases a canon lens will outperform a 3rd party lens in the same catagory.

Can't really comment on that specific lens, but I have IS on my 100-400 and the IS is still handy in the 100-200mm range. :)

[mattchase]

The IS depends more on what you intend to shoot most frequently. If you know you will be using it in low light conditions, or at slower shutter speeds, then the IS will be extremely valuable. If you plan on sticking with well lit daytime scenes, outdoor daytime sports, studio shoots with plenty of lighting, then you won't really need the IS. Whether or not the difference in cost is worth it can't really be answered outright, that is something that can really only be determined by the person looking to buy it, if it fits the needs you may have for the lens.

And I would agree with the previous statement that most Canon L lenses are better than most 3rd party manufacturers lenses. However, one of those exceptions happens to be in the 70-200 range. I'm not saying there is a "better" 70-200 lens than the Canon L, but there is a less expensive equal (at least, for the non-IS version). Before I decided on which lens to buy, I did side by side testing both outdoors and in studio, comparing the Canon 70-200 L to the Sigma 70-200 HSM, and could not tell a difference quality wise. Each lens has it's minor differences (mostly handling differences), but optically and build quality wise they are pretty much equals. So I bought the Sigma, which was $500 less than the Canon ($9000 less than the Canon IS version). Of course, the Sigma doesn't have IS, so if you decide you need that feature, you have 1 choice...Canon.

No matter which of these three lenses you choose, you won't be dissapointed with what they can do for you.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The advantage of these lenses is the fast aperture which can give you faster shutter speeds,.. I know that IS is an advantage but with only 200mm and a fast aperture,. is it worth the extra $700.00?

Be aware that the Canon 70-200mm NON IS version is not an out of date lens. Essentially Canon makes both versions at diferrent price points. Otherwise they are both "New" lenses.

Lastly,. like Mattchase above, I too have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 It is a fantastic lens and one of the best lenses that Sigma makes. I highly recomend it to anyone that chokes at the thought of $1,100.00 or more on a 200mm lens. :) (I got mine for $550.00)