IS or not IS

[lostdoggy]

Between the three different version of the EF 70-200, is it worth extra money to get the IS version??? Given that the f/4 is around $600, the f/2.8 is around $1000, and the f/2.8 IS is around $1600. Your Opinion and experience is requested!!!

[roanjohn]

I've had the 2.8 version...........and to be honest, 2.8 at 200 is still slow without a tripod. So if you can swing it, get the IS version.

Ro1

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

The IS is pretty much a superior low light zoom lens. It's 3rd generation IS is very powerful, and allows you to get great hand held shots even at incredibly slow shutter speeds. If you can afford it, the IS is a must, if you can't afford it, don't bother with the non IS f/2.8. Complete waste of money because the f/4 provides image quality that is pretty much just as good for hundreds less. So, it comes down to the money. If your low on dough, go with the f/4, if your pockets are deep no reason to be cheap, go with the f/2.8 IS.

[lordjim]

If you can afford it, go with the IS. Your lens will be more versatile as you should be able to avoid using a tripod in reasonably low light conditions.

[lordjim]

If I am not mistaken, the IS will also help if you plan to use a teleconverter with the lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have the IS and love it.. but I do not feel that IS is as helpfull on such a fast f/2.8 lens at 200mm as it is on longer slower lenses....

Also,. Canon is charging waaaaaay too much for the IS on this lens.. they can so they do,. but it is not a reflection of the actual additional costs to the lens,. it is a marketing sales target only. The 300mm IS costs a mere $100.00 over what the non IS model sold for.

[clicky]

IS IS very handy indeed. I've had the 70-200 f/4, sold it and went for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS
If you can cope with high ISO and/or longer Tv/shutter and maybe tripod the f/4 is a bargain..
As RPLS says, it's superior low light zoom lens, especially in combination with what I'd call high performance high-ISO dSLR like EOS 20D, 1D mkII, 1Ds mkII

I've got this old thread showing the "true" powers of IS in combination with high ISO:
EF 300 f/2.8 IS with 1D mk II @ ISO 3200, f2.8, handheld/IS ON, shutter 1/30,
I repeat 300 mm, IS on, shutter 1/30...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63169

[kawter2]

EF 300 f/2.8 IS with 1D mk II @ ISO 3200, f2.8, handheld/IS ON, shutter 1/30,
I repeat 300 mm, IS on, shutter 1/30...


Sounds like with those numbers you could take pictures of the back of your lens cap while it is mounted

;)

[lostdoggy]

Clicky that is impressive!!!

[clicky]

Clicky that is impressive!!!

Not really... simple as:

1. Stand +/- 45 degrees towards the object
2. Feet 2-3 ft apart, lean abit forward
3. Hold lens/camera firmly, not TO firmly...
4. Support lens with arm on chest
5. Breathe in, out, in, halfway out. Shoot.
6. View/check image
7. If camera settings prove wrong/lens cap still on. Fix this - repeat step 1-5 :D

Any deer-hunters out there might recognize this drill ;)

[where1]

Never shot with the 70-200mm lens, but was shooting the other day at 350mm at 60th and was happy with the result using the 100-400 IS lens - hand held on a ladder.

Not real sharp, but acceptable, because of the IS.

[MarkH]

If I am not mistaken, the IS will also help if you plan to use a teleconverter with the lens.

Good point! A 200mm lens at f2.8 may be OK to handhold in reasonable light, but add a 1.4x TC and you have a 280mm lens with f4 - not nearly as easy to handhold if the light is not good. With a 2x TC you have a 400 with f5.6, definately worth having IS on that for handheld shots.

[kram]

I had a Sony CD 1000 before I bought my SLR. Thought I will hide it forever, but I did have fun with it - mainly thanx to a 40-400mm lens with IS!!

And now I suffer from so many blurred images even at short zooms without the IS. If you can get it, get the IS - it makes a world of difference, esp. with heavy lenses.