Yet another 70-200L question 2.8 vs 2.8IS this time

[jukas]

Ok so I've been redoing my figures, and it seems that I can afford the 2.8 instead of the F4 I was originally thinking about buying.. so now I'm comparing the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS to see if the IS version is really worth the money (I.e. do I eat ramen for 2 months, or 4? :shock: ).

I went down to a local camera shop in the area and was able to play with the F4 version but they didn't have any of the 2.8 in stock. It late afternoon ish and I noticed an obvious increase in camera shake just do the weight of the lens.

Now I"m starting to worry that I'll have to use a tripod constently if I get the 2.8 L (I hike backcountry sw desert and locally a lot, lugging a tripod isn't my idea of fun) and wondering if I should just bite the bullet and get the IS model.

So really my question is for those of you who have the 2.8 L IS version.. I'm wondering about startup time when IS is engaged, how the IS works or interferes with panning or with action shots, and if you have the option to disable IS, or if it's a simple toggle like on my 75-300IS for normal or tripod?

Basically I'm looking for any pros or cons to the IS version over the non IS to help decide if I shell out $500 more for the IS version, or if I get to eat something other than noodles for the next 2 months! :D :D

[Adam Hicks]

I'd go ahead with the F4 and add a 135 2.0L to the mix instead of the 128. For the mid-focal range of the zoom lens the 135 will be sharper and brighter and faster... and unless you really need the 2.8 everyone says go F4 on the zoom.

That's my plan when my 20D comes in... I can't wait to shoot 20+ frames in a row from the nice fast 135mm on the 20D :)

Sorry I can't help you if you're stuck with the 2.8... but most have said go Non-IS for the price.

Adam

[aam1234]

Do what I did, apply the saying: a monopod is a poor man's IS.
For your purposes, weight seems an issue, so why not F4 + a monopod.

Warning: I'm not an expert in these things, so don't take what I said seriously.

[jukas]

Do what I did, apply the saying: a monopod is a poor man's IS.
For your purposes, weight seems an issue, so why not F4 + a monopod.

Warning: I'm not an expert in these things, so don't take what I said seriously.

I have both a mono and a tripod currently, I had made the decision to go from the F4 to the 2.8 simply because of the draw to having that extra f-stop as well as the improved DOF ability.

I think I am simply wanting the most versaility available and am afraid that if I get the F 4 I'll kick myself later for not getting the 2.8, and if I get the 2.8 I'll kick myself later for not getting the 2.8 IS. :roll:

[Sketcher]

For those of us who have the f/2.8L IS it's easy to say "Get the IS". I don't use it all the time but when I need it it's a shot saver. For me, it's worth every penny (even though I bought mine through the infamous Dell deal. The IS version for the price of the non-IS version). I would easily spend the extra to have the IS. But, then I'm speaking from my preference and budget viewpoint. I save for it if it's worth it. And the nicety of not having to have a monopod/tripod along makes it all the better IMO.

I haven't heard of anyone complain about the f/2.8L non-IS. Grabs a lot of light and it's solid so handheld you're still not needing to lug a tripod around for every shoot. The non-IS just makes sure you don't need the tripod at all.

IS spin up is fast. I don't know the exact timing but it's fast enough that I don't really think about it. Yes, you can shut it off.

[aam1234]

am afraid that if I get the F 4 I'll kick myself later for not getting the 2.8, and if I get the 2.8 I'll kick myself later for not getting the 2.8 IS.


Ha ha, that's exatly what I went through. Was so tired of thinking about that, that I decided to get the F4, and if I don't like it i'll get the IS version. Sometimes thinking hurts :D

[mjordan]

If you thought the F4 would fit your needs without IS, then the 2.8L non-IS will be that much better. I use IS a lot because I shoot in low lighted buildings, barns and arenas. IS does NOT help you with action shots. It is good for static type settings when the light is low and you want to handhold. I can hand hold down to about 1/30th with IS and still get an acceptable image that is good for at least an 8x10. It's great for panning and normal handholding type shots. I did turn it off when I shot at an airshow a couple of weeks ago because another very good airshow photographer said that with all the twisting and swinging you do chasing the jets and other planes, the IS can get confused and degrade the image. It made sense to me.

One comment you made though... if you noticed shake with the 4.0L, which to me is light, you are going to notice it more with the 2.8L because it's even heavier and bulkier. This may be a good reason for you to move up to the IS.

To be honest, which ever one you get, you will learn to work with it and really enjoy the quality of the images it can give you. If you go with the non-IS, yes there will times you wish you had it. There are times even with it, I wish I had a faster lens. No matter what you have, you are always going to wish you had something just a bit faster, longer, lighter, prettier, cheaper, etc. :lol:

Mike

[Sketcher]

One comment you made though... if you noticed shake with the 4.0L, which to me is light, you are going to notice it more with the 2.8L because it's even heavier and bulkier. This may be a good reason for you to move up to the IS.
Personally, i loved my f4 and still wish I had it in the bag but I find the weighter f/2.8L's to balance better and are more stable in hand than my f4 was. Just a personal observation, not at all a blanket statement.

[DaveG]

Ok so I've been redoing my figures, and it seems that I can afford the 2.8 instead of the F4 I was originally thinking about buying.. so now I'm comparing the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS to see if the IS version is really worth the money (I.e. do I eat ramen for 2 months, or 4? :shock: ).

I went down to a local camera shop in the area and was able to play with the F4 version but they didn't have any of the 2.8 in stock. It late afternoon ish and I noticed an obvious increase in camera shake just do the weight of the lens.

Now I"m starting to worry that I'll have to use a tripod constently if I get the 2.8 L (I hike backcountry sw desert and locally a lot, lugging a tripod isn't my idea of fun) and wondering if I should just bite the bullet and get the IS model.

So really my question is for those of you who have the 2.8 L IS version.. I'm wondering about startup time when IS is engaged, how the IS works or interferes with panning or with action shots, and if you have the option to disable IS, or if it's a simple toggle like on my 75-300IS for normal or tripod?

Basically I'm looking for any pros or cons to the IS version over the non IS to help decide if I shell out $500 more for the IS version, or if I get to eat something other than noodles for the next 2 months! :D :D

I had the same choice to make last summer. I finally decided on the non IS. Make no mistake: If I could have rationalized the IS I would have bought it but the extra $ had to go to additional equipment.

Now I'll explain my thought process so hopefully it doesn't sound like sour grapes.

I'm going to use this lens with a monopod or a tripod everytime I use it. It's far too heavy and the efffective focal length too long to think otherwise. That brings us to the next point and that's how much movement there is in your subject. It would be fine to handhold the IS version down to 1/125 but if your subject is moving quickly then the image will be blurred no matter how stable the camera/lens platform is. As someone pointed out a monopod is the poor man's IS and I have no doubt that I would continue to use an IS lens with the monopod.

But I was also in the middle of a police chase last summer (I wasn't the bad guy :D ). The real bad guy blew the engine in his truck, the cops pounced and I shot it with the 70-200 hand held at 1/1000 of a second, wishing that I had IS the whole time! Yet my results were good enough to be used on the front page of the newspaper I sold them too, so there ya go. If you can afford it buy the IS. If not the non-IS and a monopod will give you great results 99% of the time.

[samdring]

I went down to a local camera shop in the area and was able to play with the F4 version but they didn't have any of the 2.8 in stock. It late afternoon ish and I noticed an obvious increase in camera shake just do the weight of the lens. :D :D

Interesting! I hand hold on bulb with my 100-400 at twice the weight!!! My real point is, is the weight difference twixt 2.8 IS and f4 only compensated by the IS itself. In other words if lens speed is not an issue, do the two lenses equal out at common apertures for hand-held shots?

[digitalmono]

Go IS and be a happy man. After a few shots you'll get used to go handheld most of the time.

[Tapeman]

I bought the non IS version before the IS version became available.

Recently I took some shots that I wished that I had the IS version, but if you are on a budget (as I am) the non IS version is still sweet.

For daylight outdoor photography the IS is less important to me.

As always the recomended option on this forum is spend the most on glass you can swing or can charge on your credit card.

[kufel]

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26787&size=big&password=&sort= 1&cat=503

1/50s, handheld 70-200 2.8 IS with 2x extender focal length set to 385mm(x1.6, EOS10D), resting on the ground. this should answer your question

[kufel]

click the image place holder, for some reason it does not show here....

[Chris1le]

Go with the IS. I have the 100-400L. The IS works great. I also have a Sigma 709-200EX. I wish it had IS. I will probably get the Canon 70-200L IS someday. :wink: