70-200mm IS or non IS?

[Maggi Fuller]

Recently had my 70-200mm (non IS) f/2.8 stolen. Should I replace with IS version or stick with the lighter, non IS lens?

[pcasciola]

Sorry to hear that got stolen!!!

I prefer the IS version for shooting in lower light situations, and the IS on this lens is really good compared to some other IS lenses, like my 300/4L IS for example. Also, if you use extenders on it, you could be shooting 300-400mm with it, where IS comes in really handy if you are shooting handheld.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Man, that's horrible. Hope you had insurance on it!

Go with the IS version. It's supposed to be an amazing lens. :-)

[Maggi Fuller]

Err ...... no! I lent it to a friend along with a Tamron 28-300 to try out with his new EOS 3, and they were stolen from his car tog. with the camera & Lowepro bag. Unfortunately, not locked in the boot & he was too honest (daft?) to say that they weren't his, so lenses were not covered by his or my insurance. Trouble with us middle-aged crinklies, not so quick off the mark these days, so he is having to replace the lenses out of his own pocket !

Maybe I should go for the 70-300L DO IS, forget about replacing the Tamron and sell my 100-400? Heaps more expensive, but a lot lighter than both the 70-200 & 100-400.

All advice welcome - Yes I know, don't lend out my lenses any more!

[pcasciola]

Maybe I should go for the 75-300L ISI assume you mean 28-300L IS? Because there is no 75-300L IS. If so, I don't think that would be something you would be happy with coming from the 70-200/2.8L, unless you are looking for pure convenience. It will be better than the Tamron 28-300, but nowhere near any of the 70-200L's in terms of image quality.

[CyberDyneSystems]

:(

Wow,..
I'd go with the IS version. In addition to the IS it offers weather sealing.

[dharris]

You should be able to answer that owning the IS version.

[Maggi Fuller]

I assume you mean 28-300L IS? Because there is no 75-300L IS. If so, I don't think that would be something you would be happy with coming from the 70-200/2.8L, unless you are looking for pure convenience. It will be better than the Tamron 28-300, but nowhere near any of the 70-200L's in terms of image quality.

70-300mmL DO IS? The one that is so incredibly expensive!

[pcasciola]

70-300mmL DO IS? The one that is so incredibly expensive!Oh. The incredibly expensive part through me off, becuase you mentioned the 100-400L as well. The DO is not an L lens, and it's the same price as the 70-200/2.8L non-IS, and much cheaper than the 100-400L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

.. Not "Much" cheaper than the 100-400mm .. but the DO is overpriced IMO.. and not in the same league as the other "L" lenses mentioned. It's a totally different ballpark.

Maggi, I think you may still be confusing two lenses,. the 28-300mmL IS is over $2K... where as the 70-300mm DO comes in at around $1,200.00

The 70-200mL IS is about $1,700.00 and the non IS version is about $1,150.00

If you want to compare the lenses at the $1,100-$1,200 price point,. I'd definitely take the 70-200mm f2.8L over the DO if I had to chose only one.

[Maggi Fuller]

Oh. The incredibly expensive part through me off, becuase you mentioned the 100-400L as well. The DO is not an L lens, and it's the same price as the 70-200/2.8L non-IS, and much cheaper than the 100-400L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS.

Sorry, it's me getting terribly confused by some of the threads on this EF lens topic, and not bothering to look up the spec.

I am talking about the 35-350mm lens, f/3.5 - whatever, non IS lens, which is horribly expensive!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 35-350mm has been replaced with the afor mentioned 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=319784&is=USA

approx $2,200.00

[Maggi Fuller]

The 35-350mm has been replaced with the afor mentioned 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=319784&is=USA

approx $2,200.00

I give up!

Looks like I will be going with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS then.

Thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

:lol:

It's hard to keep track isn't it! :lol:

It's a good thing you have us "PhotoNerds" around drooling over all the new releases to keep track for you ;)
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2hdzu/pics/atom2.gif


Anyway,. the 70-200mm remains the best lens of the bunch!

[Maggi Fuller]

Certainly is! Thanks a lot & sorry for the confusion. Love the gallery BTW, particularly Zeeny's Cormorant!

[freddiebear48]

What about the 70-300mm IS?

[Maggi Fuller]

The advice I have been getting all recommends the 70-200mmL, IS or not, over anything else for sharpness. The 70-300mm IS attracts as it is small & light, but not 'L' or f/2.8. Speed & sharpness are more important to me than convenience.

[SeanH]

In every test I have seen the Non IS is sharper, regardless how much it is sharper. Now is your going to shoot alot in low light then I would say get the IS. When I was considering the same thing I talked to the photogarphers I know that have the IS, most of them said they hardly ever use that feature. After all it is a 2.8. I have the Non IS version and have never missed a shot that I would have got with the IS. The only plus I could use it for would be the blurred motion effect, since I mostly shot motocross with that lens. But other than that I think it's a waste of cash, if im gonna spend big money on a L lens I want it as sharp as posible........because isn't that the reason we buy L glass anyway???