70-200 2.8 L "IS" or not?

[jbradc]

Okay, so I sold my 70-200 F4, now I need to upgrade and I can't decide between the IS and non IS versions of the 70-200 F2.8 L. Are there any other differences other than the IS feature? I read somewhere that with the non IS version only the center focus point works when using the 1.4x or 2x extenders. Is this true? I have also heard the non IS version may be sharper? I am not usually this indecisive....help.

[xc611]

IS, period.

[eosster]

If I were you, I'll get IS version after all your upgrading right.

[gmen]

I've often thought about upgrading my faithful 70-200mm f/2.8L to the IS version.

What's stopped me?

(i) I've never missed not having the IS. Of course, this might just be because I predominantly shoot sports.

(ii) The non-IS lens is fantastically sharp. Here's a quick example (shot wide open) from a week or so back:

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/aq002.jpg

I can also confirm that the non-IS lens works with any focus point set-up with both the 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Not to say that you shouldn't go with the IS version - but you would certainly not be disappointed with the quality the older lens can produce.

[jukas]

Personally if you ever think you may end up shooting with it in any kind of lower light situation go for the IS. I too had the f/4 version and while I loved it I wanted the 2.8. I also did the IS or no IS dance and eventually settled on the IS version.

I ended up deciding based on my shooting needs which can often be in anything but spectacular daylight. Canon claims that the IS can offer up to a 3 stop compensation so if you run the math say at the furthest focal length for shutter speeds you're looking at 1/500 Non IS and 1/60 IS. Personally I'd say unless you have very steady hands and good technique 3 stops would be pushing it, but 2 is very doable, so you're looking at 1/125 instead of 1/500.

To me it was worth the extra couple of hundred dollars for the versatility. If you always carry a tripood with you, then there is no reason to go for the IS. If you don't consider spending the extra and buying the IS version. Most likely you'll end up loving it and be glad you got it, but if you don't they have an incredibly high resale value on FM and you're likely to get 90% return if you sell it.

[JSolie]

I was in just about the same boat as you...IS or non-IS on the 70-200 2.8L. I decideded on the IS version because this lens will be used both indoors and out, in odd lighting situations, and sometimes at a fairly high ISO. And I might not always be able to use a tripod or monopod.

-- John

[paulhillion]

I'm in the process of selling my 70-200 2.8L non IS, my reasons? Although I have a decent enough tripod I'm usually too lazy to take it along with me, and if I do take it with me as soon as I stop to start setting it up my wife gives me that look and I usually abandon the idea and just shoot hand held, in which case having the IS is a nice option! Plus it's weather sealed which when coupled with a 1 series body means you don't have to quickly bag your camera when it starts to rain.

My non IS 70-200 sure is sharp and I hope the IS version is just so, I'll find out in about 4 days time :D.

[Panza]

I say IS. I had no idea how good IS is until I got the 2.8 with IS. After I read the reviews at FM it was no doubt in my mind. Even less doubt after I got it.

[britt777]

My opinion of the IS, is it's just one more thing to break and need fixing. That's what tripods are for. Guess it depends on what your shooting. If I shot mostly sports I would take my chances. Nature photography, save the money and spend it on a good stable tripod. Good luck to ya and happy shooting!:lol:

[Persian-Rice]

My situation is the same as gmen. My non-IS is awsome. For me, I also mostly shoot sports, I have no use for IS. Low light or not, IS wont do anything for you if you shoot high speed. I might use it in some normal situations that need IS, but not nearly enough to justify the money.

All focus points work with the extenders for me as well.

If you plan on using this as a walkaround, which is sort of insane considering the size and weight, or mostly for shooting low speed stuff that require a tele, wildlife for example, then IS is good to have. However, the IS model is the least sharp of all the 70-200 lenses.

[pcasciola]

I just got the IS version of the 70-200 today. Still in the box actually. Regarding the non-IS version being sharper, this is the same stuff I heard about the 300 f/4L IS when I got it, and I've yet to see a side by side test that proves that. I also shoot mainly sports, but I also plan to use this lens indoors too and in my opinion the IS will help more than it will hurt. I know some of my shots with the 300/4L have been saved by IS.

However, like Persian Rice and gmen have said, if you are only shooting high speed action with it (excluding panning of course) you may have no need for IS.

[Persian-Rice]

pcasciola, there are several side by side comparisons that prove this fact, that the f4 is sharrpest and the IS is the least. I will try to find the sites for you.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd say that if you remember getting shutter speeds lower than 1/125 with your f/4 L wide open in conditions where you need the shot, then you need IS

If it usually doesn't drop that low, then just go for 2.8 cause it's sharper.

And if you shoot at the beach/need seals, then IS.

[jbradc]

pcasciola, there are several side by side comparisons that prove this fact, that the f4 is sharrpest and the IS is the least. I will try to find the sites for you.
I would like to see that myself.

Thanks

[Persian-Rice]

I cant seem to find it, it was posted a very long time ago, back on the old board.

Maybe someone has a link, the best one was a non-English one, I think it was non-English. It was quite popular thread. It compared all three. The IS was surprisingly dull compared to the f/4(100%), but the 2.8 was right in the middle, not f/4 sharp, but sharper then the IS. Don't get me wrong it wasnt a huge difference.

Speaking from personal experience, I would say that the sharpness 70-200 F/4 with a 1.4 is almost the same as a naked IS model. Maybe not that much, but very close.

I wouldnt really worry about sharpness, since its nothing huge, unless you start extending. The image degradation might become ugly on the IS, while the other two I assume would be much more tolerable.

[pcasciola]

I'd like to see the review too, so hopefully someone has the link. But, then again, for almost every review that goes one way, there is one that shows it the other way too. Like this one:

http://www.edwardagnew.com/photogear/phototech_return_frameset.html?=70_200IS.html

But again my main point is that in my opinion the benefits of IS far outweigh any loss. I need f/2.8, and I also need IS. So while I might see a slight loss in sharpness when pixel peeping, that's nothing compared to getting a blurred shot from not having IS, which I would have had on many occasions if I had the non-IS version of my 300/4L. Plus, it also makes panning that much easier, which I also use a lot.

That said, I do definitely plan on owning the 70-200/4L as well, just because it's so much smaller which will come in handy sometimes, and it's cheap enough that I can justify owning both.

[DocFrankenstein]

f/4 is cheap hehe

I disctinctly remember the comparison PR is talking about.

All we need now is the missing link. It's probably where you least suspect it is :D ;)

[pcasciola]

Here's a few comparision reviews I dug up that I found when I was trying to my decision between the IS and non-IS versions of this lens. The luminous landscape one I hadn't seen before.


The Digital Picture 70-200/2.8L Non-IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The Digital Picture 70-200/2.8L IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Luminous Landscape 70-200/2.8L IS:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml

Fred Miranda Reviews of 70-200/2.8L IS:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

[Panza]

From canon USA:
70-200 f4:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_4mtf1.gif http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_4mtf2.gif

700-200 f2.8:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28mtf1.gif http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28mtf2.gif

70-200f2.8 IS:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf1.gif http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf2.gif

[CyberDyneSystems]

In essence,. the charts show that the difference is infinitesimal...
Certainly not something that could be visible in side by side comaprisons.

With the IS version sharper at 200mm,. and the non IS sharper at 70mm...

And the f/4 taking the "cake" at 200mm ;)

[Hydro]

I have the Sigma 70-200, and have considered upgrading to the Canon as the soccer season begins. The cost of the IS version always made me pause, so I was very interested to see that Gmen uses the non IS version for his incredible shots. I always thought the IS version would be MORE useful for action shots (sports), rather than the opposite.

My question for Gmen or any other sports shooters, do you always use a monopod or other support, or does the higher shutter speeds allow you to handhold. I just have a block about lugging a tripod around, and would much rather go handheld. Any input from you folks would be greatly appreciated. If I think I can use the non IS 2.8 handlheld with a 1.4 extender, I would be very tempted to dump the Sigma and get the Canon.

[DIGITAL PHOTO GUY]

I was in the same dilema, I decided and just purchased the IS version from B & H, AT A PROMOTIONAL DEAL at 1599 with usa warranty. May still have offer if that price interest you. Anyway the deciding factor was...after searching for 6 months on prices I've notice the resale value of this lens is close to what you pay for NEW. So, in other words , if I get tired of the weight or just want to sell it. I can just about break even and go cheaper (price). Anyway good luck to your decision making. Also note...Go with your gut feeling on this one.

[pcasciola]

I'm fairly sure the promotion is over, but B&H's everyday price for their "import" version without USA warranty is $1599. I just got mine for $1469 from Dell w/USA warranty.

To answer Hydro, I mostly shoot handheld because I have IS, and I do use IS for sports, but mainly indoors and when it's overcast and I'm not getting fast shutter speeds. I shot an indoor basketball game with my 300/4L and got some really good shots by using IS. Without IS I would have had a lot of blurry shots with the 1/125 and 1/160 I was getting on a lot of shots. The important thing to remember though is that IS will not help you stop motion. That's why some people say it doesn't help for sports. A larger aperture helps a lot more than IS in that case.

Monopods are generally enough for sports. There's no need to lug a tripod around all day. I almost bought the Sigma you have. It's a great lens as well, and I would definitely get that over the Canon 70-200/4L, but this deal popped up on the IS so I couldn't resist. Aside from the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 which I just can't afford right now, the 70-200/2.8L IS is the lens I've wanted the most since I got my 20D.

Bottom line is, all three Canon 70-200's and the Sigma are great lenses, it's just a matter of picking which one fits your budget and needs.

[thomasrhee]

IMO, It all boils down to whether you think having the "IS" is worth $560 or would the money be spent better elsewhere. If you think you'll need it in the future and can afford it, go with it. If you upgrade again, it's more money lost thru the upgrade process.

Image wise, I'm not convinced that any of the three 70-200/L's are superior to another. The main factors between the three lenses are whether you need f2.8 vs f4 and whether you need "IS" or not.

[DocFrankenstein]

Supposedly the differences between them will show through on full frame 1Ds mkII

[khiromu]

I also heard that non-IS version may be sharper, but I believe that's when on the tripod. If you hand hold the lens, I think you get more keeper due to IS. If you use tripod, then f/4 version can do almost as good except the DOF difference. So my choice of 70-200 is either f/4 or f/2.8 IS.

[Hydro]

Thanks Phillip (and others) for your insights.

[jbradc]

Thanks to everyone for thier input. After much debate (and selling some equipment) I have decided to get the IS version :-)