Canon 70-200 USM non IS advice needed.

Hey All!

First step done. The wife approved the investment!

I shoot mostly Pets, Flowers, Natural life, Outdoors, etc. I will invest in my first L lens and after many reviews and videos watched I'm considering the Canon 70-200 2.8.

The question is: Does the IS feature really make the difference? The IS cost about 2k plus and there is no way I can afford that.

I know the F4 is cheaper and have the IS feature but everybody who bought the F4 eventually upgraded to the 2.8.

Would my photos be affected if I handhold the 70-200 without IS?

I will appreciate the advices from people who own these lenses.

You don't need IS.

buy it.. you won't regret it... its a very nice portrait lens.. see dxomark score for this lens.. i know some of the data there are rubbish, but then just take a look.

just know its limits, ex. if you shoot at 200mm, then the least ev will be around 1/200.. if you can't get a properly exposed image on this ev @200mm, then get your flash..

i had it on the 450d before, and it's amazing.. i say it again, you won't regret buying it..

i have the non-IS f2.8 and most of my shooting is hand held. i don't think that IS makes a better image, it only helps getting the shot in lower light situations etc .

so, are the optics better on the IS version? probably. but i can't see it being so much better because its already such a kick ass lens.

IS would help if you're shooting at 200mm and the shutterspeed is slower than 1/200 sec.

ungucpho wrote in post #14463839
IS would help if you're shooting at 200mm and the shutterspeed is slower than 1/200 sec.

But if you're shooting anything moving, you're not going to be shooting much slower than that anyway.

do you guys think the 2.8 is more sharper than the F4 IS L lens?

When you stop the 2.8 down to 4, it will be sharper than the 4 is at 4.

I don't know about 2.8 at 2.8 vs. 4 at 4, but I bet it is sharper.


2.8 lets in twice as much light as 4. IS is neat, but there is no substitute for letting more light hit your sensor.

Thanks!

Sam6644 wrote in post #14463961
When you stop the 2.8 down to 4, it will be sharper than the 4 is at 4.

I don't know about 2.8 at 2.8 vs. 4 at 4, but I bet it is sharper.


2.8 lets in twice as much light as 4. IS is neat, but there is no substitute for letting more light hit your sensor.

Its pretty much splitting hairs when you compare f4 to f4. The f4 IS has a slight lead at 70mm, the f2.8 is a little better at 135mm and its pretty much a dead heat at 200mm according to the copies Brain tested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I went with the f4 IS, but it was a hard choice for me. The lightweight f4 really sold me.

Sam6644 wrote in post #14463375
You don't need IS.

Well we don't need DSLRs either but they are a lot handier than iPhone cameras. IS is useful and I find myself glad I went with the f4 IS over the 2.8 non IS because I tend to use it for portraits a lot more often than just the outdoor sports I bought it for. IS helps to balance the ambient lighting and gives you more options for shooting informal portraits. If you follow the thumbrule of 1/fl*crop, for me using a 7D, I need 1/320" at 200mm. With the f4 IS, I can go 2 stops slower and still get a subject blur free shot at 1/80" for portraits. Now this will not help me for sports, but with human subjects posing for you, the f4 IS does give you a 1 stop advantage over the 2.8 non IS

Maybe at some point I will get the 2.8 IS II and trade the f4 IS in, but I think I will get the 135/2 instead for when I need faster than f4.

erikfig wrote in post #14463355
Hey All!

First step done. The wife approved the investment!

I shoot mostly Pets, Flowers, Natural life, Outdoors, etc. I will invest in my first L lens and after many reviews and videos watched I'm considering the Canon 70-200 2.8.

Here is another thought, If you are not doing sports and shooting outdoors wildlife stuff in generally good light with this lens, you may want to think about the 70-300L too. The extra 100mm will come in handy for that type of shooting.

I've been using the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a while now (due to budget) and am very happy with it. While I'd rather have the IS all else being equal, I'm happy to keep this one for now (pure amateur use) and may upgrade if I come across some extra $$$.

As with all things, it's a trade off...since the sports shots I take are at night in poorly lit fields (see samples below), I had to use high ISO and high shutter speed to reduce blur, so the IS probably wouldn't have helped. There were times when I used the lens for portraits and that's when the IS would have come in handy, for these sports shots however, non-IS at f2.8 was more useful to me than the f4 with IS.

http://www.facebook.co​m …32350&type=3&l=​b57172d6f9
http://www.facebook.co​m …32350&type=3&l=​550d7acfd2

Until recently I had a 70-200 f2.8 non IS using it mainly for sport. I thought it a great lens. Then I got the mk2 IS and I have to say what a difference. It is sharper, brighter and the IS is just fantastic. Photographers I work with who are still using the non IS and the MK1 have lens envy when I turn up with this lens.

If you are on a budget, get the non IS lens...you will not be disappointed. If you can afford it, get the MK2 IS as it is a stunning lens.

Sam6644 wrote in post #14463922
But if you're shooting anything moving, you're not going to be shooting much slower than that anyway.

IS stablises the vf and still helps...

Try handholding @ 200mm for moving subject at 1/200 and I bet you will see the diff between the IS and non-IS lens

niv2 wrote in post #14472246
Until recently I had a 70-200 f2.8 non IS using it mainly for sport. I thought it a great lens. Then I got the mk2 IS and I have to say what a difference. It is sharper, brighter and the IS is just fantastic.

Exactly. The people who is happy with the non-IS simply don't know what they are missing out