70-200mm f/2.8 IS or Non-IS

Still diggin this lens. Hardly ever leaves the camera and take it everywhere.

I was looking at the Tammy and Sigma but will squeeze the trigger on a used Canon 2.8 IS v1. I don't see how you can go wrong with any of these lenses.

i've had my 70-200 2.8 since late march, I already want the iS version. Now the question is, ver 1 or ver 2 >__< Keep in mind its quite long on a crop sensor, on full frame it is an amazing focal range.

Davd901 wrote in post #15908951
I need to choose between these two lenses and I've been stuck on this for awhile. Is it worth the extra cash for IS? This will be mounted to a T4i. Thanks.

Dave

it is worth paying extra for IS

I have the 2.8 IS II..

the IS is great.. especially the 2nd mode, used for panning shots.. stabilises up and down movement but not side to side.. Lovely touch that works fantastically...

IS is the way to go, you will not regret it, but may if you don't have it.

MakisM1 wrote in post #15909071
Although the SS is high, 1/3200, I would have never had the head of the moth in focus, notice that the antennae and the tail of the moth are outside the DOF... without IS

IS is like magic in this lens... You half press the Shutter button and in an instant all motion of the lens quiets down and lets you make the shot!

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I can assure you that IS had nothing to do with capturing that image. In this shot, proper placement of the appropriate AF sensor is key, not having IS, especially at 1/3200s.

effstop wrote in post #16266004
I was looking at the Tammy and Sigma but will squeeze the trigger on a used Canon 2.8 IS v1. I don't see how you can go wrong with any of these lenses.

Would have been great to get a Canon, but the price got me to decide on the tamron. No regrets. Think I'll get a teleconverter next.

IS for sure when you realize your hands are getting a little shaky at 60 years old. I had no idea until I started my hobby a few months ago! Therefore, I went with the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II just to help my camera shake. Of course, I also got a tripod and a monopod to help too!!

adamo99 wrote in post #16268436
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I can assure you that IS had nothing to do with capturing that image. In this shot, proper placement of the appropriate AF sensor is key, not having IS, especially at 1/3200s.

If you don't have any idea you can assure nothing!

What I am saying is that a lot of people say that IS is useless when you shoot at high shutter speed.

What I am saying in the photo of the moth is that the IS allows me to stabilize my lens enough to put the very shallow DOF exactly where I want. With the appropriate AF point on the eye of the monster...

IS is useless, but II version of 70-200/2.8 is not

If there would be II version without IS I would take it, as IS iteself is useless for me for example.

However Canon makes I version of non IS and its different IQ at the end which makes us to buy expensive II IS version...

MakisM1 wrote in post #16268556
If you don't have any idea you can assure nothing!

What I am saying is that a lot of people say that IS is useless when you shoot at high shutter speed.

What I am saying in the photo of the moth is that the IS allows me to stabilize my lens enough to put the very shallow DOF exactly where I want. With the appropriate AF point on the eye of the monster...

While you may have been able to achieve focus more easily with IS, you still ended up with a soft image. That subject would be more appropriate for a macro lens. Probably soft due to cropping? I don't think the IS added any real value to that image for this reason.

IS makes a huge difference handheld indoors. I get that, but I don't think the moth example applies.

For sports, I shoot with support because I'm out there for a long time and the 1D with this lens gets heavy. IS would not add any value at all for a shot like this, which was shot on top of a bean bag:

I own the 2.8 IS II and I'm having a love/hate relationship with it. Sometimes its bang on focus and other times it's just poor. Doesn't like trying to focus on bumblebees at all at closest 1.2m focal distance.

Maybe I was expecting too much from this lens, but I am kind of looking at my images and asking why I paid all this money for it. It's not fun to carry around either. Far too heavy.

Paulstw wrote in post #16269910
I own the 2.8 IS II and I'm having a love/hate relationship with it. Sometimes its bang on focus and other times it's just poor. Doesn't like trying to focus on bumblebees at all at closest 1.2m focal distance.

Maybe I was expecting too much from this lens, but I am kind of looking at my images and asking why I paid all this money for it. It's not fun to carry around either. Far too heavy.

Are you sure the AF variability isn't the 7D? There are a lot of love/hate relationships with that system on this board.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16268556
What I am saying is that a lot of people say that IS is useless when you shoot at high shutter speed.

Those people are 100% correct.