70-200 IS over priced and not worth the up grade!

[photography By Evangelos]

Well I have now played with the les for a few months as several events and I can not tell the difference vs. the older non IS canon 70-200 L . I just do not need the IS it is over priced if you ask me. The 70-200 is a fine lens don’t go for the up-grade it is not worth it if you ask me. You are just throwing your money away on an over priced lens. IS to me is just not worth the hype for my shooting style. Non IS is just fine not the mention that now with digital we can change ISO settings very easily to compensate for low light and keep our shutters a bit faster thus no need for IS. Best of luck and save your money it is not worth the hype!



Angelo :cool:

[jbradc]

Don't hold back, how do you really feel :-)
You are correct, it is all about your shooting style, if you use a monopod or tripod in low light shooting the IS is a waste, but if you need to handhold while shooting at 1/60 sec @ 200mm that is a different story. I want to move up from my 70-200 F4L to one of the 2.8L's and I struggle with which one to get.

[Tom W]

Yes, if you're not going to use the IS, it is probably better to get the non-IS version. Both are great lenses.

[PacAce]

Maybe you should tell us what your shooting style is so that the rest of us will know whether we should avoid that lens or not, based on whether we have the same shooting style as yours or not.

[Longwatcher]

You are right it is a waste of money if you like the noise three stops higher in ISO.

I on the other hand feel my investment was well worth it as having the IS allowed me to keep the ISO down in the low noise zone on several occasions.

Much like the 1DsMKII I purchased, sure I would get great pictures from a 20D or a Kodak SLR/c, but I am willing to pay the extra to get the extra little bit if it helps me.

[ron chappel]

I tend to agree that IS is abit overblown
For awhile i thought that it was THE thing i really wanted next,something that would make a genuine difference to my results.

The problem is that the IS just didn't improve things enough for me to get night action shots of any reasonable quality.For daytime use it was not needed and anything inbetween tended to fall be non sports photography (for me) so with digital i could take several slow shutter shots and pick the sharpest.
If i was doing low'ish light sports of course,IS (together with a large aperture) would be a winner

[MarkH]

Let's not forget that for 1D series users the IS version is also weather sealed, whereas the non-IS lens is not.

[MrChad]

I've stood at the back of some churches and had awesome shots thanks to IS on my 75-300 IS and Elan 7. I want to upgrade to the 70-200 IS but the money is huge, hand holding a tele at the long end with a crisp shot is worth gold IMO.

I currently can't pan my IS at motorsports events either, sure would be nice on the 70-200.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Whether we love IS or not,.

I do have to agree with the FIRST basic sentiment of the thread,. ...that being that the lens, relative to it's counterparts,. is rediculously overpriced.

The additional cost of this lens Vs. the NON IS version is so dramatic merely to maintain differing price points and keep a marke open for the NON IS version.

In Each instance where a standard lens has been replaced with an IS version the prices remained virtually the same.

So ,. if we accept as fact the basic concept that the IS version is priced as high as it is for reasons other than just the addition of the IS,. we still need to draw our own conclusions as to whether or not the extra $$$ is worth it to ourselves, regardless of why we must pay it.

It all depends on what value the individual puts on the addition of the IS, weather sealing etc..


For the most part it would seem most are willling to spend the extra $$ for the value added by IS. On this forum anyways,. the IS owners far outnumber the Non IS.

[Cadenza]

I know they're precision manufactured marvels,
blah, blah, blah... but the fact remains that
Canon is making a killing in obscene profiteering
with these lenses, across the entire range.

[Ajay213]

Canon is making a killing in obscene profiteering
with these lenses, across the entire range.

Hmmmmm. I'm sure that's Canon's bread and butter product, without IS L lenses Canon would go under ;)

I'd be willing to bet that Canon makes FAR more profit on $200 digicams than they do on IS L lenses, mostly from the fact that for every 1 IS L lens sold they probably sell 1,000 consumer level cameras.

Lens choice, just like every other piece of equipment is a tool. Pick the right tool for the job and then that tool is a high value product. Pick the wrong tool, or a tool that offers features that you don't need, then you lose value. Go tell a wildlife photographer that IS on telephoto lenses is a waste of money (since most of them shoot at duck/dawn-poor lighting and from quite a distance) and after about 15 minutes of laughter from them they will roll their eyes at you and walk away shaking their head. On the other hand tell a landscape photographer who always shoots from a tripod that he needs IS and you'll get equally strange looks. Neither is right or wrong, they just have different needs.

Andrew

[MDJAK]

Whatever profit Canon is making is not relevant to me. If I want something and I can afford it, I get it. For me, IS was the difference between sharp shots and not so sharp shots. I love my 70-200 F2.8 IS. I also love the 28-135 IS I just bought. Now, if only my 100 2.8 macro had IS, I might have a chance of holding it steady.

[Redbird_xo]

I know they're precision manufactured marvels,
blah, blah, blah... but the fact remains that
Canon is making a killing in obscene profiteering
with these lenses, across the entire range.

Word! Just because Canon can't really market its lens, consumer or professional grade, like what it does with the consumer digital camera -- the megapixel delusion. Without the volume, Canon has to price its lens (especially the L lens) at a higher price point to make a pretty good bottom line on the financial statements...

Enough ranting here. Just my thoughts. ;)

[digitalmono]

[QUOTE=
Canon is making a killing in obscene profiteering
with these lenses, across the entire range.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are.
I wish I can do the same taking (sharp) pictures someday!
IS is great!

[SeanH]

I have always been told that ANY IS lense will not be as sharp as the non IS version.......simply because of the IS. Always made sense to me. Personnaly I would never buy L glass with IS......unless I had to us it for a living, and the stuff I shot was mostly low light.

I took a look at the 17-85 IS the other day, decent lens but way over priced.......IMO (for a 5.6 lens). If it was about $475.00 I might have got it, but instead I just ordered the 18-55 rebel lens.....LOL. I get sick of draging the L's around for family/web stuff.

[Longwatcher]

I have always been told that ANY IS lense will not be as sharp as the non IS version.......simply because of the IS. Always made sense to me. Personnaly I would never buy L glass with IS......unless I had to us it for a living, and the stuff I shot was mostly low light.

If the IS is turned off it should make little if any difference, because the glass is where it needs to be. If the IS is on, then yes it will not be as sharp. Also as you use the IS more often the optics that are moved in the IS process will be more likely to go out of alignment slightly. However all other camera setting being equal an IS shot will look sharper then a non-IS shot with motion blur.

For brand new lenses straight from the factory that have not yet been used I would expect little to no difference. However, over time I would expect the IS to slowly lose sharpness faster. Over time all lenses lose sharpness as heat, cold, pressure and handling all come together to slowly affect the lens. Some lenses go faster and some go slower. If I really wanted to I could probably find multiple examples of where say the 70-200/2.8 IS is sharper then a 70-200/2.8 without IS.

Of note to remember there are two classes of IS. the early 2-stop version (28-135, 75-300, 100-400L) and the later 3-stop version (70-200/2.8L IS) huge difference between the two. Also it appears to work better at longer focal lengths, even though it is probably not really. I will take ISO 100 over ISO 800 any day (and especially ISO 400 over 3200) even with the 1DsMkII and it is good on low noise. I think of IS as a 2 to 3 ISO expansion versus my shutter spped.

As you can tell I am a big fan of IS. I use it less then 10% of the time, but it sure comes in handy when I use it. I still think it was worth it to me and I will continue to purchase IS capable lenses if they meet my needs. On the other hand if I did not have the money to get IS then I would still get the best lens set I could afford.

Just my opinion,

[eosster]

Best IS is tripod, lol. I need a IS lens, never owned one and I want one....really bad.

[photography By Evangelos]

For years I used the non IS canon 70-200 F2.8L with no problems Digital and Film and it worked like a champ and I never missed the IS. I recently sold off my 28-135 IS lens just don't need it big and heavy. I got the metal mount 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM and it is a better lens optically and smaller for the times when I just do not want to carry the weight. Again for most IS is just not necessary I have lived and worked with out for over 15 years using the canon EOS system. If I were buying and had to give some advice I would say go for the 70-200 F2.8 L and skip the IS not worth it with digital you really don’t need it. Also the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM is a great lens for general shooting when the “L”s get too heavy and you are on vacation. Most of the time for paying work my work horse lenses are 16-35L, 24-70 L , 70-200 2.8 L, 300 2.8L and Sigma 105 Macro. And the 2 I take on vacation all the time are 16-35L and 28-105 Metal mount USM with NO “IS” thank you.


Angelo

[BoySpot]

Reading through some of these posts, two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, IS suits some people and not others. Secondly, some people seem to feel that they are vulnerable about their choice. Why are some of you so determined to say it is either right or wrong (in this case more are out to say it is wrong while those who like it seem to be pretty sanguine about it). Give your opinions but let the others disagree.

As for whether I like IS, I haven't got anything with it yet so I don't know. I am certain of one thing, though. Any loss in sharpness will be far less than my inability to hold the lens steady normally produces.

[BearSummer]

IS rocks.

hand holding a 200mm lens at 50th of a second is worth the money. If you dont think it is then dont buy it, its that simple. Canon arent "obscenely profiteering", they are selling lenses at what the market will stand, if you dont like it shop elsewhere... oh nobody do a 70-200 2.8 in IS canon mount, well i guess you are S#!t out of luck then.

If you can afford it buy it, if you cant save up for it, if you dont want it then go without, if you want it cheaper then go grey or 2nd hand. Most importantly, go take pictures.

regards

BearSummer

[Tom W]

I know they're precision manufactured marvels,
blah, blah, blah... but the fact remains that
Canon is making a killing in obscene profiteering
with these lenses, across the entire range.

At what point does profit change from acceptable earnings to obscene profiteering?

[jbradc]

...Why are some of you so determined to say it is either right or wrong (in this case more are out to say it is wrong while those who like it seem to be pretty sanguine about it). Give your opinions but let the others disagree.

Great point BoySpot. If there is one thing I have learned from years of photography, it's that there is more than one "right answer" and that is what makes the experience so enjoyable.

[attu]

Do Canon still make the 70-200f2.8 non IS ?, i read some where they were discontinuing it and ive just looked at the 3 largest camera suppliers in the UK and non of them list it any more.
I imagine the ones still for sale are the last so soon it will be a mute point on which one to buy as there will only be one choice.

Andy

[jbradc]

I have not heard anything about the non-IS version going away, that would be crazy on Canon's part. The price difference is too great (over $500.00).

[dr.bear]

Bottom line is this. The advantages of IS vs non-IS has been talked about over and over again in this forum and others. Whether or not the IS is worth the $600 difference depends on the individual. If you feel it is a rip off to pay the premium for the IS lens, well, then get the non-IS version. You don't have to prove it to us. I'm sure you'll be very happy with it. To me, I love the IS feature and am fortunate enough to be able to afford this lens. I must admit, for as long as I've owned this lens, I would say I only turn on IS approximately 10% of the time. But as I said before, I love the IS feature and not once have I had buyer's remorse for spending $1650 for a single lens. I'd buy this lens if I had to do it all over again. So to each his own.

[donlavange]

At what point does profit change from acceptable earnings to obscene profiteering?

When the price produces profits beyond what "the market would bear" if people had a choice. Obscenity enters the picture when you have no other choice and cannot "live"(literally) without the product (Cancer drugs, Aids drugs etc.)

Note that when aspirin was created in Germany, it was given to mankind because it was seen as having too great a benefit to mankind to patent. No photographic equipment falls into that category. Canon deserves what we will pay (even though they try to screw us on rebates).

[PekkaM]

I have the non IS version and have never missed that feature. The price difference was huge when I bought it (50% almost). Now that I have the 20D, the higher ISO's are really not a problem either and I also bought Neat Image Pro Plus licence to go with it.

[MackRoe]

After reading some of the ideas expressed here, I must take issue with somebody intimating that Canon is some kind of evil entity for wanting to make money ! Why is it that we want to criticize and scorn a company that is able to hire the very best engineers, the finest software developers, extremely talented people who are able to produce these stunning machines that we all love so much. Without a doubt, Canon makes some of the best cameras and lenses the world has ever seen, machines which have enabled me to mate my imagination with their breathtaking design, and make photographs that give me great joy, and I'm willing to pay for the priviledge. Sure, I wish Canon would call me up and give me some of their machines for free, but until thay do, I'm saving my money and will keep buying whatever helps me to produce the images that thrill my soul.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Why dig up a two year old thread to post this rant...