WHICH 70-200 f2.8L?

[Radtech1]

Samys has the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens for $1649.95. This puppy weighs in at portly 3.2 pounds accdg to Canon.

Samys also has the EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM Autofocus Lens for $1349.95. This little guy is 2.8 pounds.

So we are looking at a $300 (23%) price difference for Image Stabilization, BUT there is a 3/10ths (OK, about a Quarter Pound) hit in weight.

The end result is this: Is the Image Stabilization worth an extra Three Large in price? OR is the benefit of Image Stabilization sucked up by having an extra Quarter Pound out at the distal end of a Eight inch slug of glass?

ALSO, what is that handle thingy on all the photos of this lens. It makes me want to mount the lens onto a fishing rod. Does that in some way attach to a tripod? Neither of my tripods have slots that will accommodate something like what I see.

Rad

[sGu]

it's definitely worth the extra money for the IS, especially in low light condition, u'll see the sharpness in ur picture, the extra amount of weight shouldn't be much of a problem.

I've got couple of samples with 70-200mm IS f2.8 lens, all photos r taken handheld.

http://Gu.smugmug.com/gallery/123226

The ring u mentioned is a tripod ring, instead of mounting a head on a mono/tri-pod, u can mount the lense directly onto ur support system, hence balance the heavy weight of lens and camera body combined, make it easier to move the camera around, especially panning.

[Haifidelity]

I have the non-IS version and can safely say that IS would be worth it, since all the claims of acceptable sharpness as low as 1/30th of a second is possible. I can't get an decent sharp shot at lower than about 1/150 in low light at the long end.

As for the weight--it'll be heavy regardless of either version.

-hza

[cmM]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/
a comparisson between the 2.
I am a little confused, as this lens is on my shopping list as well. So far I'm set on buying the NON IS version, because it'll be most likely be used for outdoor nature/sports, and if ever will I need to use it in low light conditions, I will use a tripod (monopod maybe)
B&H sells the non IS version cheaper, making the difference even bigger ($1,139.95 for the non IS lens)

I have the non-IS version and can safely say that IS would be worth it, since all the claims of acceptable sharpness as low as 1/30th of a second is possible. I can't get an decent sharp shot at lower than about 1/150 in low light at the long end.
Now I'm confused again.....

[nikee]

I think it boils down to these two points:

A. You need high resolution (eg. use frequently a 1.4x teleconverter) and use the lens mostly on a tripod or monopod.

B. You need very good low-light performance and use the lens mostly hand-held.

IS-version is best for type B. Non-IS version for type A.

Know however that when you are frequently using a teleconverter, the non-IS-version may be better suited, as its resolution is higher. This applies also for digital sensors (like the 10D having one)!

Based on the numbers by William Castleman, here are some approximate numbers of resolution when using teleconverters with the two versions of the 70-200 2.8L:

Using a IS-version:

55 lpm (worst case) / 70 lpm (best case) at 200mm (using no TC)
40 lpm (worst case) / 50 lpm (best case) at 280mm (using a 1.4x TC)
28 lpm (worst case) / 35 lpm (best case) at 400mm (using a 2x TC)


Compared with a non-IS lens:

60 lpm (worst case) / 80 lpm (best case) at 200mm (using no TC)
44 lpm (worst case) / 57 lpm (best case) at 280mm (using a 1.4x TC)
31 lpm (worst case) / 40 lpm (best case) at 400mm (2x TC)


Note that these are calculated numbers - For example, I don't know how the resolution is affected by the f-stops 'eaten' by the TCs. Real tests should be done here...

regards
nicola

[drisley]

I've got couple of samples with 70-200mm IS f2.8 lens, all photos r taken handheld.

http://Gu.smugmug.com/gallery/123226



Holy s*#@! :o
sGu, those are beatfiful shots!
Curious, did you use any sort of velvia post process? The colours are so vivid!
Great work!

[cmM]

I think it boils down to these two points:

A. You need high resolution (eg. use frequently a 1.4x teleconverter) and use the lens mostly on a tripod or monopod.

B. You need very good low-light performance and use the lens mostly hand-held.

IS-version is best for type B. Non-IS version for type A.

here's a quote from the above posted URL by me:
The non-IS lens has higher resolution when recording on film than the IS version. This may be important if you shoot with fine grain film. There is no detectable difference if you shoot with digital bodies (applies as of 2004)

Therefore, it boils down to one point:
Do you have an extra $500 to pay for IS (is it worth for your purposes)?

[Andy_T]

So we are looking at a $300 (23%) price difference for Image Stabilization, BUT there is a 3/10ths (OK, about a Quarter Pound) hit in weight.


I'd think twice about getting it. According to your figures, the going rate for a pound of Canon L lens seems to be around $ 465.

A pound of IS, however, costs $ 900 :shock:

Now that sounds pretty expensive to me.... :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: I'd love to have your problem of deciding between these two...

[Olegis]

With a good monopod you'll be able to shoot with the non-IS version of the 70-200 at 1/60s or even at 1/50s (at the long end of the lens). Of course no monopod will be as convenient in use as the lens with IS, but $500 is a lot of money after all ...

[gkas]

Don't forget, IS should get you a sharper image at ALL speeds against a non-IS.

[cmM]

Don't forget, IS should get you a sharper image at ALL speeds against a non-IS.
please back up your argument.

From what I know (please read my posts above): technically, the sharper image will come from the NON IS version. No noticeable difference on digital though, only on fine grain film.

It will give you a sharper image when handheld, at slower shutter speeds.

[Chris1le]

I don't have the Canon 70-200 but I do have the Sigma 70-200. If I were to do it again I would go for the Canon 70-200IS. Not so much for lack of picture quality with the Sigma but for the IS on the Canon. I have the 100-400IS and the 28-135IS and enjoy them both.

Look at it this way. $300 will seem trivial down the road. Especially if you decide that you do want or need the IS in the future.