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!!

[sm45acp]

I have the 70-200 2.8 no IS and i love it if you can afford only one prime lens that would be my choice and not all lenses are created equal i have a sigma, tamaron and a few canon lenses, the aftermarket are very good, sigmas ex line are great

[Longwatcher]

My usual answer is IS is great for still targets (or at least slow moving), but if you are doing sports it probably won't help a bit. For handheld still targets (such as landscape) it could help a great deal.

It mostly helps if the photographer/camera is moving. It doen't help much if the target is.

Just my experience.

Of course the 70-200/2.8L with IS is the next lens on my list. It is currently 50/50 whether or not I get it before I go to Jamaica this year in late September. I found last year that the IS on my 75-300 helped greatly when taking pictures from gently rocking boat or from moving car/bus. And as I mentioned in another post I almost picked up a 70-200/2.8L this past Monday, but it did not have IS so managed to hold off.

Just consider what YOU are going to use the lens for before deciding to get it.

[ssim]

I got the IS in my 100-400L and love that lens.

When I was at the Grand Prix in June I shot some with IS on and then with it off. I found the ones with the IS on to be noticeably sharper. These tests were done at the 400 focal range. For the 200 I'm not sure if you would need it.

IMO.

[ChrisNardone]

I am a huge fan of my 70-200 f/4L. It's less than half the price and half the weight of the 2.8's. Yeah there's those few times you "need" that extra stop. But the other 2000 pictures you take your carrying around a lot of extra weight. I also have a 300 f/4L IS. I dont' pull it out of the bag nearly as often.

[BearSummer]

Hi Ed,

If you are shooting landscapes and using a tripod then you probably wont need the IS. However if you are handholding the lens for almost anything then I would leave IS turned on. The 70-200 is one of my most frequently used lenses and IS is usually purring away whenever I use the lens. If you can afford it then it's well worth the money. Why not stroll down your local camera shop and shoot a few frames with IS off and then on and compare them at 100%, or else think about the extra 2 stops IS gives you, so you can hand hold at 50th of a second at 200mm.

Best Regards

BearSummer

[justme_dc]

I have the 70-200f2.8L and I couldn't be happier. I have never had much need for the "IS" lenses. I am sure they are amazing but I haven't missed not having it on my lenses. I have also shot with the 70-200f4L which is optically the equal of the f2.8L. If weight or money is an issue I'd seriously reccomend the f4. If you can live without the one extra stop of light you'll save a bundle.

[msvirick]

IS will also deplete your battery faster.

[mkaplan]

Something else you have to remember. You don't need IS for a 200mm lens, maybe not so much but don't forget that on the 10D it is equivalent to 320mm... yes, you can use IS. I even love the IS on my 28-135 which is only 216mm. Yes, it won't always help in sports shots but it is a great invention. I 1st bought it on ly 70-200 F2.8 and then decided on the 28-135 just because of it.
BUY IS !!

[lightandlife]

Somewhere in a magazine I read that Canon's 70-200mm L was the best lens in that category. He was testing various telephoto lenses at a railroad intersection by taking fast moving railroad containers which have perfect vertical edges.

IS should improve shots in handhold situations. IS would make no difference in outdoor shots when the subjects are moving fast. Indoors, IS does not improve at all, if the subject is talking or moving. I am sure it improves shots in marginal conditions when you do not have a tripod.

When I attened a big party, a couple of professional photographers took pictures with Nikon version of 70-200mm L. Canon L lens is better. If you can afford it, get the new one. If you have to ask, maybe it is not worth the extra money.