70-200 f/2.8 question with Poll

[nemesis099]

I'm looking to purchase a 70-200 f/2.8 and was curious if the Canon L lense is that much better that it is worth the $300 extra dollars? I would be looking to photograph a few different things. Sports would be my main focal point since wildlife would most likely require more reach and other events wouldn't require that much.

My second question is would it be worth saving up $500 above the price of the canon L lense to get IS?

The lense prices in the poll are from B&H in US currency.

Please if you have any comments let them be constructive and back upu what you voted for.
Also I did a search and didn't come up with anything useful

Edit:
Forgot to mention right now I have a DRebel (might upgrade to 20D later) with the kit lense and a quantaray 70-300 f/4-5.6 which is to slow for what I want.

[Longwatcher]

I can only speak to IS or not.

If you are only shooting sports then IS will probably be next to useless so don't waste your money.

If you plan on shooting other things where a steady hand is more important then IS is the way to go and is well worth it. The IS on the 70-200/2.8L IS is fantastic.

[Tom W]

Also note that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS has weather sealing. All Canon 70-200L lenses give distance information to the camera, which would be helpful for E-TTL II (but not necessary).

I don't know if the Sigma gives that information or not.

That said, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM is a very good lens. I have it and I'm very happy with the image quality that can be had with it.

[nemesis099]

Longwatcher and Tom thank you both for your replies.

Please if you vote reply with a reason for your vote or the poll is meaningless. If you think the IS would be the better for me tell me why you think that.

[fslshooter]

I have both lens and shoot sports. I bought the Sigma first then thought I needed IS because I shoot hand held and often at high ISO. Unfortunately the Canon locks up all to frequently when in IS mode and if there's a difference in image quality that the two produce I can't see it. The Sigma is a bargin at half the price.

[G2Jim]

I say if you can afford it, go for the L w/IS. The lockup problem found on some is easily repairable under warranty. Since I got mine back from the shop it hasn't given me any problems at all.

[Tomsk]

Just got a Sigma recently and had my first shoot - Badminton.
Nearly all my pics came out OK, just missed the focus on a couple 'cos the players were moving around too much. I was actually a bit too close and had to keep the lens at 70mm to get the whole player in frame.

I was hand holding on a 300d. The 4 frame buffer and slow write speeds hampered me a couple of times as well.

I would have bought the non-IS Canon, but I couldn't afford it.

[Tapeman]

I have had the non IS version for about 4 years. Probably I would have benifited from the IS is for about 5% of my shots. This will be one of the last lenses I upgrade.

[drisley]

For sports you don't really need the IS version.
You will need shutter speeds of at least 1/250sec to freeze action in most sports, and that would eliminate the need for IS.
IS only helps in low light on stationary objects.

[tofuboy]

You sure you couldn't find any information about which 70-200 lens to buy? I swear I see one of these threads every week or two ^^;; Maybe I'll post one when I'm ready to buy one, lol. Actually, I probably won't... as I have my mind set on the 70-200 L IS. Why? maybe because we all want the absolute best? The weather and dust resistance of the IS version is a little reassuring (all though not 100% since the rebel doesn't have weather sealing). And maybe you won't need IS for sports, but you might find it useful for other things... you may even find it useful in sports... who knows? but there's my reason for the IS version.

[MarkH]

I voted for the IS, because that is what I am currently saving for. I like the weather sealing combined with no change in size during zoom and focus, I often shoot in dusty conditions. There will be times that I am glad to have IS too.

[robekert]

I voted for the Canon IS version. I have only 3 lenses (15mm Fisheye, 24-70L & 70-200 IS) I bought the IS version because I wanted the most versitile lens.
Cheers,
Rob

[Dale]

If you can afford it go for the IS. If you don't need f2.8 take a look at the f/4 which is a very good lens and cheaper.

[Cordell]

Unlike some others who have commented to get the IS based on THEIR reasons of use, I will say do not get the IS for the needs YOU have stated. If I were to give you MY needs which you did not ask for, I would say IS.

With that said the Sigma is a very good lens and you save $$ compared to the Canon lenses. If you think you might want IS for slower shutter speeds later you might want to consider it. I shoot weddings and don't own the Canon IS, but I used it a couple of times. I currently use the Sigma you mentioned and I am very much happy with the results. Considering you can do high ISOs with good results and you say you will shoot sports (movement=fast shutter), IS would be a waste of money. When you need that extra stop you can get it from ISO settings especially since you seem to not need it much.

I hope I helped based on YOUR stated needs.

Cordell

[JX]

The EF 70-200 2.8 L lens is a nice lens. I decided to get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. It was defective right out of the box. I have seen a lot of posts about this particular lens regarding the IS. I wish I had order the EF 70-200 2.8 L, I could have save myself some money and aggravation.

[drisley]

Unlike some others who have commented to get the IS based on THEIR reasons of use, I will say do not get the IS for the needs YOU have stated.

I totally agree, for sports, IS is not really needed, unless the sport you are shooting is Chess :lol:

[scsmith10D]

I love the non-IS but have never tried the IS version. I have the 28-135 IS and can see with the 70-200 where IS would be beneficial, but I screw on my monopod when shooting indoors and seem to do okay.

(Monopod = poor man's IS, or so I read once...)

[C.S.I.]

Im VERY HAPPY with the Sigma :lol:

[Tom W]

I totally agree, for sports, IS is not really needed, unless the sport you are shooting is Chess :lol:

I'm not sure how effective IS would be when shooting timed exposures in Bulb mode. ;)

[cmM]

shooting sports at midnight outside with available light ... the 70-200 L IS was my champion. Of course, I can't compare as I haven't used any of the other ones you list. (that's why I haven't voted).

[AzzKicker]

I would go with the Sigma, based on your needs. You don't need IS, and why pay 300 more for a Canon 70-200 when you cant even tell the difference between it and the 300.00 cheaper Sigma.

It's really a No Brainer.



The only Canon L glass I would ever buy is Primes....


Even the Tamron Lens that competes with the 17-40L is better. L glass is a thing of the past.... And was for a time when it was really the only good glass around. NOw Tamron, Sigma are competing VERY VERY well as far as Glass is concerned. I mean how much technology can go into glass before its all just the same, GLASS.


What sucks about this poll, is people are voting based on WHAT THEY WANT

[aznkid.com]

The only Canon L glass I would ever buy is Primes....

may i ask why?

[AzzKicker]

The only Canon L glass I would ever buy is Primes....

may i ask why?

Because as far as ZOOMs go, The differences I've seen between Canon and Tamron or Sigmas is almost non existant, so why pay around double the price.


Now with Primes its different because I want telephoto primes and I think Canon makes the best.

[nemesis099]

What sucks about this poll, is people are voting based on WHAT THEY WANT

I noticed this and thought that maybe I should have left the IS lense off the poll. For my needs IS isn't a requirement but I wanted to see the validity of the poll. If people actually read and came to an opinion on my needs the other 2 lenses would be in front.

I think I will get the Sigma to save me some money. I might also get a 1.4x TC in case I need more reach. I'm not a big fan of TCs but to get 280mm (448mm on the DReb) at f/4 might be worth it.

[JX]

AzzKicker wrote:
I would go with the Sigma, based on your needs. You don't need IS, and why pay 300 more for a Canon 70-200 when you cant even tell the difference between it and the 300.00 cheaper Sigma.

It's really a No Brainer.



The only Canon L glass I would ever buy is Primes....


Even the Tamron Lens that competes with the 17-40L is better. L glass is a thing of the past.... And was for a time when it was really the only good glass around. NOw Tamron, Sigma are competing VERY VERY well as far as Glass is concerned. I mean how much technology can go into glass before its all just the same, GLASS.

Hi AzzKicker,

You raise an interesting point. I must admit that I have been asking myself the same question. I agree with you that IS was a waste of money. When I purchased my 70-200 L F/2.8 lens. The Image Stabilization motor was defective right out of the box. On the positive side the lens is constructed well. I had a chance to shoot with a Sigma 100-300 Zoom and it seem like the barrel was made of plastic. It was very light in comparison to my Canon 70-200 L. The Sigma did produce good pictures.

[AzzKicker]

What sucks about this poll, is people are voting based on WHAT THEY WANT

I noticed this and thought that maybe I should have left the IS lense off the poll. For my needs IS isn't a requirement but I wanted to see the validity of the poll. If people actually read and came to an opinion on my needs the other 2 lenses would be in front.

I think I will get the Sigma to save me some money. I might also get a 1.4x TC in case I need more reach. I'm not a big fan of TCs but to get 280mm (448mm on the DReb) at f/4 might be worth it.


see what I did was bought 2 lenses for the price of the Canon 70-200 alone.

I got me a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex and 70-200 f2.8 ex.

[tofuboy]

I agree with you that IS was a waste of money. When I purchased my 70-200 L F/2.8 lens. The Image Stabilization motor was defective right out of the box.

Would you have that same thought if your lens wasn't a lemon right out of the box? There is more to the cost of a lens than simply the quality of pictures it takes... if it was based on that, then the 50 f/1.8 would cost more than $70.

Optics, build, materials, resale value, service/support, and then there is always name brand.

I didn't know what nemesis099 values more with regard to price and the factors in the price, so I injected my own opinion when making my vote.
I did vote based on what I wanted, but if I were in the same situation as nemesis099, I personally would still want the Canon with IS. At the 200mm end, going off of the 1/fl rule for shutter speed, IS would be a benefit for any shutter speeds < 1/200s. I have seen posts where people with the 70-200 non-IS say they planned on upgrading to the IS version... wasted money if they would have just footed the bill for the IS version in the start.