70-200 f/2.8L IS vs. Non IS version

[eunger]

With my tax return comming some time in the near future, I am looking at purchasing my first L series lense. I have a strong interest in shooting sports photography and my 75-300 f/4-5.6 just doesn't cut it at night or in darker settings. My question is how much of a difference is there between the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L and the non-IS version. I would prefer not to spend all of my tax return on one lense, but I am not ruling it out as an option. If I had known I would take such a strong interest in such an expensive hobby, I would have found a high paying job that I hate versus a low paying job that I love. Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Tom W]

The IS version has the advantage of reducing camera shake to the extent that you can usually shoot about 3 stops slower than you would ordinarily have to shoot to maintain a blur-free image. Its great for low-light situations and hand-held photography.

What IS will not do is prevent motion blur caused by a moving subject. However, f/2.8 should provide you with 2 stops of extra light over your present lens which should help keep your shutter speeds up.

One other thing to consider - is 200 mm long enough? You know from your experience with the 75-300 what focal length is adequate.

Both are very good lenses.

[dr.bear]

IS: +$600. +3 stops. Heavier.

vs.

Non-IS: -$600. -3 stops. Lighter.

[Chargers70]

After you have used the IS a couple times you will love it. If you can afford it go for it. I have it and love it. If you are not going to be shooting in situations where you need a slower shutter speed though don't waist the money. I hear the regular version is even a tad bit sharper although as good as mine is that is hard for me to believe. If you are planning on just using it for sports just go with the cheaper one. You may even be able to get a used one on EBAY for a good price. Whichever you end up with trust me you will be happy. I just made the switch from Nikon to Canon and shoot my first college basketball game tonight with the Canon and wow is it a world of difference. I love the low noise with Canon.

[Olegis]

I think that the non-IS version will do for action sports photography - you'll work with fast shutter speeds to arrest movement (minimum of 1/200-1/250), therefore the IS will not be very useful then. The IS will be useful when shooting static objects in low light, therefore making the IS-version lens more versatile. It's up to you to decide whether you want the versatility, or you can live without it by using some kind of support - a monopod maybe whenever the conditions require.

I'm very happy with my 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS lens, along with high ISO settings on my 10D it delivers superb images. You can see some examples here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=all) , here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/playandmusic2&page=all) and here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/street_theatre&page=all) .

[EoSD30fReAk]

i had to make the same decission a couple of weeks ago!

i went for the NON IS version because i didn't think the IS was worth the extra $

i do have 2 lenses with IS (28-135IS and 100-400L IS) so i know what IS is capable of.

[attu]

IS can be use full in some situations in sport photography, for example panning a moving object at a slow stutter speed to give a seance of movement. On the 70-200 you can switch the IS mode so it only eliminates vertical shake.

This was taken with a 100-400 with the IS on mode 2 (Ive also got a 70-200)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/michelle.smalley/New%20Folder/IMG_5994.jpg

Like they say its better to have and not need than need and not have, if you can afford it that is :)

[dhbailey]

Like they say its better to have and not need than need and not have, if you can afford it that is :)

It's always better, whether you can afford it or not.

But we all learn to get the best out of the equipment we've got, and for many years fantastic racing pictures have been taken without IS technology in the lenses, so my advice would be to go with what you can afford and the length you really need, regardless of the IS.

With a monopod, a non-IS lens can make terrificly clear shots. What you will notice most, I think, will be the lack of sufficient length to get the framing you want, so be sure that the length of the zoom will get you the shots you really want to take.

[Tapeman]

I bought the non IS version before there was an IS version. It is a great lens.

I probably will not upgrade to the IS version, but I would buy the IS version if I did not already have what I think is a nice copy of a 70-200L 2.8

I probably will not upgrade my 28-70L 2.8 either for the same reason.

[khiromu]

The only reason I buy Canon 70-200/2.8 is IS. Otherwise, i would buy a used Canon 80-200/2.8 or a new Sigma 70-200/2.8 at $600-700. IS on this lens is incredible. It is totally different world from non-stabilized lenses. .. To me, it's worth every penny..

[defordphoto]

It's always better, whether you can afford it or not.

But we all learn to get the best out of the equipment we've got, and for many years fantastic racing pictures have been taken without IS technology in the lenses, so my advice would be to go with what you can afford and the length you really need, regardless of the IS.

I have IS on most of my lenses but don't use it very often. I hand pan all the time with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 100-400 IS with IS off.

Notice the "L" wheels... ;)

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2004/CCWS/Portland2004/PractQual/_l5c3524_std.jpg