70-200mm 2.8 Comparison

[LadyHawk]

What are the pros and cons between the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS vs. the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS? I have the non-IS version - is there anything I'm giving up by going for the IS version?

[rent]

the only thing you are giving up is a slightly smaller size of the non-IS version, and about $550. -alex

[Dew]

this (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/200109.html) might be of use

[Skip Souza]

This might help also. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml

P.S. Ladyhawke, did you find the camera bag you were looking for???

[SkipD]

Karen - if you can swing the extra cost, you will spend the next few years wondering how you ever did without this fantastic lens. Every time I use mine, I am amazed at what it is capable of doing for me.

[Pekka]

Couple of weeks ago I swapped some stuff (70-200 f/2.8L non-is, my 10D and Sigma 14) for IS version (new), and I have been very pleased. My reasons for getting IS version was (in order of importance)

- dust and moisture sealing
- IS
- faster AF
- better bokeh
- Full AF compatibility with 1.4X II (on old version only center point is "reliable").

There image quality between IS and non-IS is very similar, IS version has better bokeh especially with smaller apertures. Image quality with 14X mkII is very good.

IS is very useful. I really do not have to carry a monopod for other than weight, sharp shots are possible with very low shutter speeds (1/20 and so) and it helps focusing in low light (light accumulation is more accurate without extra shake).

[herderdog]

I am waffling back and forth on the same question--I imagine I could "almost" always do OK with the non-IS--but, then I read how everyone that has switched to the IS has never looked back.
I am now settled that I will get the IS version--guess I gotta sell a few lenses!!!

[LadyHawk]

Thanks Alex, Dew, Skip S, Skid D, and Pekka. I was worried I wouldn't get a response as I posted this in the wrong place.

The only reason I wanted to upgrade was to compensate for my shakiness. Now that I know the IS lenses offer other advantages, I won't hesitate to make this purchase. Thanks for the links and the info... you saved me a lot of time researching. Love this forum!

(My first post from Pekka... I'm am truly honored!:D)

(Skip... I ended up buying a bag from Lightware that was perfect for my needs. Beer pocketbook, champagne taste!)

[LadyHawk]

I am waffling back and forth on the same question--I imagine I could "almost" always do OK with the non-IS--but, then I read how everyone that has switched to the IS has never looked back.
I am now settled that I will get the IS version--guess I gotta sell a few lenses!!!

Hi Bonnie... when I purchased my 70-200mm non-IS I told myself I could learn to be steady to save the $500 difference between the two lenses. Famous last words... :lol::lol::lol:

[herderdog]

Hi Karen,
Yes--I have tried to be conservative too--thinking I could get by with just a little less. I bought the 200 2.8L lens and tried to use it a the dog trials last weekend in the morning when the light is almost always low (cloudy and rainy a lot of the time) great lens alright--but I need the zoom--too many changes of scene.
Second day there I switched back to the 100-400 IS all day and got along better. I kept the 100-400 on a tripod all the time, except when it was raining (then I would hand hold it)---and shot all day-- comfortably.

So....I have to go back to AZ this week--and when I get back I'll have to put a couple of lenses up for sale--and bite the bullet for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

[huskie]

I haven't been able to decide which lense to get either. I know the IS version is heavier and more expensive, but neither of those reasons really matter. I am wanting to use it for mainly indoor and some outdoor sports, and I have heard some say that the IS is a hendrance for that type of photography. Any ideas either way?
Thanks,
Sam

[Dealau]

I am wanting to use it for mainly indoor and some outdoor sports, and I have heard some say that the IS is a hendrance for that type of photography. Any ideas either way?
Thanks,
Sam

I have heard the same, another photog i chat to has both and finds that the non-IS gives a more crisper image.

Myself, I'm looking at a 70-200 2.8, but not to worried about the colour of the lense and am thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 which is cheaper again that both the Canon 2.8 and is on par with the price of Canons F4 version. Another photog i know has the sigma lense on his Nikon and gets very good results.

It is a delema!