Canon 70-200 2.8 - IS or non-IS

Hi,

I'm considering getting a Canon 70-200 2.8 as I'm finding that my 18-200 4-5.6 is too slow and I'm fighting with slow shutter speeds. The older non-IS lenses are much cheaper than the new IS II versions but are they worth getting? Is it worth spending an extra $600+ for a IS I or $1200 more for an IS II?


Kym

I would buy the IS II all over again if I had to. Its a great lens, and IMHO, worth every penny I spent on it.

If you are sold on Canon - buy once and get the MK II

If you can afford it, I'd get the IS mkII, otherwise I'd go non-IS.

I would prefer IS of some sort.

If you can afford the MKII, it is the best. I've never shot with it, but it has faster AF and better IS. Plus most with it will say it has by far the best IQ.

I humbly disagree with Motor On in get the MKII or the non-IS. He is probably going by that many say the non-IS is sharper than the MKI. (I don't care to get into a debate.) If it is you probably will only notice it if you pixel peep or make exceptionally large prints. The MKI (not the non-IS) was the main 70-200mm (of the f/2.8 flavor) of choice for many Canon shooters until the the MKII came out.

There are also the Sigma and Tamron lenses with their versions of IS, that are also considered excellent.

(For me) The only reasons to pick a non-IS lens in this FL range is if I could not afford it or I was always (and only) shooting fast moving subjects (that IS does nothing to stop) in good light. After writing the last statement, really only would get an non-IS in this FL range if I could not afford the IS lens.

Best of luck, and let us know what you decide.

It depends on what you shoot. For sports you won't need the IS much. To me the Canon ver.2 is worth the money.

If you need a 70-200 f/2.8L right away you can buy a used one now and sell it for what you paid for it (or close) while saving for a ver.2.

the 70-200mk2 is worth every cent the one lens i had no buyers remorse purchasing once I started shooting with it..

Buy the f/2.8 IS II if you can afford it, if not, buy the f/4 IS.

I shoot news and with the 5dmk3 I don't really feel the need for IS. Just my input. Sure I wish I could get the IS but hell this stuff actually costs money and I prefer to eat sometimes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Couldn't agree more.

I shoot concerts and classical stuff, plus PR photos for musicians/singers, and the profit margins are not so great.

SO, I bought the non-IS, because I know how to stand still/use whatever support is around/use a monopod or tripod....so I don't need IS up to 200mm.

(Now, my 100-400 is different story! IS really helps at that FL, but that's besides the point here!)

Regards,

Simon

I have a Canon 70-200 f2.8L non IS and for me it rarely get used as I can't seem to hold it still enough to get the shot. My suggestion is save up and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II model and never look back.

I can't imagine not having IS on this FL. I have the f4 IS version and saving up for the f2.8 IS II

Have you considered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM? You get IS (OS) and f/2.8 for less money than the Canon non-IS lens. Lots of reviewers rate it as having better IQ than the 2.8 IS v1 lens. I've never touched a Canon 70-200, but I am really happy with my Sigma.

I believe Tamron also has a new 70-200 2.8 VC lens.

TSchrief wrote in post #15808988
Have you considered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM? You get IS (OS) and f/2.8 for less money than the Canon non-IS lens. Lots of reviewers rate it as having better IQ than the 2.8 IS v1 lens. I've never touched a Canon 70-200, but I am really happy with my Sigma.

I believe Tamron also has a new 70-200 2.8 VC lens.

Snap! I was just looking at the Sigma as a lower cost alternative. The reviews are good and at 1/2 the price of the canon it suits my budget better.

You might want to consider the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" used, too. It's still a fine lens. Highly recommended.

I'd definitely go with IS over non-IS, for a telephoto in this range. Especially if planning to use it on a crop sensor camera.