Image Stabilisation

Hi everyone

I have recently upgraded to a Canon 5d Mkiii

I am now looking to add a selection of new lenses

I am looking at buying a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens and am trying to justify the extra cost of getting the IS version of this lens.

Is the Image Stabilization worth the extra cost?

I want to use it for wildlife photography, but am hoping to take up wedding photography in the near future.

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Steve

The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is almost in a league by itself. Buy it if you can. I've seen some pop up here in the classified area in the $1500 to $1800.
It's not only the IS, but the optics.

For wild life not so much, for weddings yes.

It's really improved my keeper rate. Adding at least 2-stops of stabilization in those marginal lighting situations will make a significant difference. It is costly but just prorate that over the years you'll be enjoying it .

I'd say yes. I have the f4 version of that lens, which is quite a bit lighter, and I don't feel I can keep it sufficiently still for a sharp picture when hand holding it.

I'd say yes. The 2.8 isn't exactly the lightest lens, so I'm sure it's helped my shots over the years. I shoot weddings occasionally as well, and it's a BIG help there.

The original version 70-200 2.8 IS is still a pretty amazing lens, and is available used for a significant discount over the Version II. With the II, you gain sharpness at the corners, maybe slightly faster focusing (Ver I is already very fast) and a newer version of IS that is around 1-2 stops better. Ver II is supposed to give improved results when shooting with teleconverters as well.

If you can live without the improvements of the II and not having the "latest and greatest", the original version is still excellent, just not quite as excellent as the II, and several hundred dollars cheaper (used). If your budget allows for Ver II, then it is the better of the two.

Wildlife? On full frame with a 200mm lens? You are either really, really sneaky, or you are shooting the family cat. I use 400mm on a crop camera and have to crop heavily to get anything worth while. Or perhaps the critters around here are just super-skittish.

I would opt for the IS version. I need it at 200mm.

Thank you for your advice.

Will put the IS version ii on the Christmas wish list and see what happens

Thanks again

For your choice you are not just paying extra for IS, you are paying for an updated lens.

I think you will be disappointed with a 70-200 for wildlife. A 100-400 II costs about the same as a 70-200 II IS and would be much better for wildlife.
Or for half the money a Tamron or Sigma 150-600. Or a used 100-400 V1. Or a used 300 F4 IS with a 1.4 Teleconverter.

I don't like IS (probably the only one!) however the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a significantly better lens than the earlier incarnations - they are all good but the Mk2 is just better!
Is the IS worth it - definitely NOT in my opinion (I would prefer it not to have IS). Is the (Mk2) lens worth it - simply yes!

johnf3f wrote in post #17799645
I don't like IS (probably the only one!) however the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a significantly better lens than the earlier incarnations - they are all good but the Mk2 is just better!
Is the IS worth it - definitely NOT in my opinion (I would prefer it not to have IS). Is the (Mk2) lens worth it - simply yes!

Sharper handheld photos using long lenses with IS. Panning opportunities that simply don't work with non-IS lenses.....what's not to like?

you're going to come up really really short for wildlife...unless you're working out of a blind...i'd look at something a lot longer

That lens is a horrible choice for wildlife. If you're serious about wildlife opt for the 100-400L ii instead, though it will be horrible for weddings.

As everyone else had said 70-200 is far too short for wildlife unless of course you are just shooting the geese at Pugneys.

get the 2xiii extender and you'll be fine for wildlife. Also works great for weddings.