Picking up a 70-200 2.8 - Is the IS worth the extra $750?

Plain & simple, is the IS worth the extra cash? I'm pretty stable and steady when I shoot...I have no problem shooting at 1/10 with no movement. Does that matter with a lens that long?

Thanks,

~Ace

i assume your contemplating between the canon 70-200 2.8 and the 2.8 IS II
why not look at a used 70-200 2.8IS v1 can get one mint for around 1100-1200

I purchased a 70-200mm 28 non IS a few weeks ago. Had the same dillema between spending more for IS or not. I am halpy I got the non-IS version for less money.

My only gripe is that it is heavier than I expected on my 7dmk2. I definitely need to get a battery grip to balance it out.

The difference between the optics in the old, non-IS version and the new IS II is pretty large, regardless of the IS. I'd, personally, consider it worth it just for the optics upgrade alone. However, if you don't feel the need for IS, or if you just really don't feel like you can justify the spend for the newer lens, the latest Tamron 70-200 VC is widely regarded as "close enough" for most people's purposes to the Canon MkII but for less money and might be a good option for you to consider.

As stated above the difference in the newer IS lens is far more than the IS - it is simply a sharper lens. Outside of that on a Canon body IS makes a considerable difference as you approach 200MM.

Thanks, guys! I did see that the newer IS one has 5 lens elements as opposed to 4 on the non-IS model, but I wasn't sure how much of a difference that made in image quality. I should add that I am looking to put this on a Best Buy card, so that eliminates buying a used one. I was also looking at he Tamron, but I'm trying to stick with Canon lenses...as stupid as that sounds. I'm looking to use this for a variety of situations, including a lot of indoor high school sports, like wrestling, basketball, etc...would the IS version perform better for indoor/low-light situations?

If you have the funds, the 70-200 MkII is just an astonishing lens. I bought it as a toy when it first came out (maybe used a dozen times, total, since I picked it up) and I still feel like I got my money's worth on the chances that I do use it. I mostly shoot much longer, even with a crop body, so it doesn't come out often; but I never stress about the results when I need to pull it out.

And yes, IS will help any time you aren't able to keep your shutter speeds above 1/200. (Help with preventing motion blur from camera shake; it won't do anything to keep your subjects from causing motion blur when your shutter speeds drop)

Unless you shoot a lot of sports IMO the IS is worth the money.

One last question, and this one is HUGE for me...I shoot on scene for several fire departments. I noticed that the mkII is water resistant, is the non-IS? I shot in a blizzard last week and my camera and 24-105 were completely wet and snow-covered. I've also seen a lot of water from over-spray, so water resistance is a must!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CRtX​c6

I don't believe the non IS model is as water resistant.

the non IS is not weather sealed..the IS models are.

Short answer, YES. The difference between 1/200 handheld and 1/30 is huge. It makes the lens so much more usable.

Thanks, guys! Looks like it will be the IS version for sure.

Thanks again!

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #17877011
Plain & simple, is the IS worth the extra cash? I'm pretty stable and steady when I shoot...I have no problem shooting at 1/10 with no movement. Does that matter with a lens that long?

Thanks,

~Ace

It matters heaps if you are going to use a 5DSR. Without it the camera would be almost permanantly sitting on a Tripod when using the 200mm end

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #17877060
Thanks, guys! I did see that the newer IS one has 5 lens elements as opposed to 4 on the non-IS model, but I wasn't sure how much of a difference that made in image quality. I should add that I am looking to put this on a Best Buy card, so that eliminates buying a used one. I was also looking at he Tamron, but I'm trying to stick with Canon lenses...as stupid as that sounds. I'm looking to use this for a variety of situations, including a lot of indoor high school sports, like wrestling, basketball, etc...would the IS version perform better for indoor/low-light situations?

No, IS won't give you any advantage in these situations because IS doesn't freeze action. The f/2.8 aperture will help, but if indoor sports is your requirement, I'd look at a faster prime like the 85mm f/1.8 or the 135L f/2.0.