Canon 70-200mm NON is?

Just been browsing round eBay, and found on it both a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS, and a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS. I didn't think there was such a thing? There isn't according to the Canon UK website anyway.

Anyone know anything about the non-IS version of this lens?

Cheers!
Tom

I cannot tell you the difference but I know a nice website with all the current and discontinued Canon lenses listed:
http://www.canon.com …m/camera/lens/f​_lens.html

--Jens--

I have the IS (Image Stabilization) version of the lens. It adds about $500 to the retail cost. Otherwise, the two are the same.

BH has non IS listed for US$1129.95 for US version,
IS version for $1649.95. import version about $30-50 cheaper.

However IS version (US and import) is out of stock and for BH to be out of stock is saying something about that lens. (I suspect Dell's former special offer is affecting quantities)

I got the IS version, but played with the non-IS version in a local store, but they could not even get close to BH prices (they would have had to sell below their cost).

link
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com

direct link maybe?
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …74&Submit.x=37&​Submit.y=8

I have the non IS 70-200. I suspect that it's been discontinued in favour of the IS version but since Canon probably has a warehouse full of them why admit it and make them obsolete!

Mine is a great lens I should point out and a lot less expensive than the IS version - unless that Dell thing actually turns out to be true. I'd love to have the IS version but I just couldn't rationalize the price difference.

To make this as sour grapes as I can: I use this lens 99% of the time with a monopod, which is do-it-yourself IS. Then I have to take into account what my subjects are doing, and if they are moving much then IS is moot and off-set by subject movement.

Still, you can always turn the IS off if you don't like it, and I can't turn it on on mine! And for some shots - say inside the church during a wedding - IS would be really useful even on a monopod.

The 70-200 2.8L is a fantastic lens. I use it the most of the 3 lenses I have, usually for about 1/2-2/3 of photos at weddings are taken with it. I'm sure the IS adds even more functionality but I decided to learn to hold and shoot properly rather than paying another 70-800 bucks for IS. I regularly shoot this lens at 1/90 but I can hold it to 1/50 @200 if I have to.

Highly recommended.

I have the Non-IS lens - even though I love the lens, I am going to upgrade to the IS version for the poor light conditions of shooting night time football and soccer games with my 10D. Anyone interested- its mint!? randy@thefig.com

009randy wrote:
I have the Non-IS lens - even though I love the lens, I am going to upgrade to the IS version for the poor light conditions of shooting night time football and soccer games with my 10D. Anyone interested- its mint!? randy@thefig.com

I don't understand how IS helps you here.

The 70-200 is effectively a 112-320 mm lens. At 320 you shouldn't handhold it below 1/focal length, which is either 1/250 or 1/500 depending on how conservative you want to be. Now with IS you'll get two stops below that, say either 1/60 or 1/125.

So have the football players stopped running? As I said in an earlier comment it isn't camera movement that's the issue here, it's subject movement, and those shutterspeeds are too slow to freeze action.

Cheers for all the advice!

I think I am going to get the non-IS version. At work I use a Nikon D1x with an 80-200 f2.8 without stabilisation, so I'd imagine that it would give much the same results.

Now I just need to decide which to buy first- the Canon 16-35 L f2.8 or the 80-200 L f2.8.. decisions, decisions!!

Cheers!
Tom

I hope that you miswrote when you indicated that you were going to get the 80-200 f2.8L. It's the 70-200 f2.8L that you should be after. It's not that the 80-200 is all that bad a lens, it's that you won't have instant MF and I'm pretty sure that is's not a USM.

Exactly. I have found that when there is movement, I get cleaner shots with the IS turned off. I'm not sure of the mechanics of why, but the IS system seems to have specific uses and if I'm shooting something outside those uses (i.e., not panning, not stabilizing for low shutter speeds) the shots will be slightly softer if the IS is active. There really isn't much of a use for IS with action shots unless I'm in "panning" mode and actually using a panning technique. It certainly will in no way compensate for low light when trying to stop action, because as Dave mentioned, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250 is needed stop action, and I prefer the safety of a bit faster than that personally.

The IS can't work miracles. It is simply another tool for specific conditions.

David

I do apologise! yep, I did mean the 70-200. I'm looking at the Sigma EX equivelent as well, seems to be quite well regarded.

Cheers!
Tom

One little correction, the IS should get you 3 stops not 2.

Personally I am hoping to save enough money to get the IS version. I know there are many situations where you need a high shutter speed and therefore don't require IS (or where there is plenty of light). There are also situations where there is not enough light even with IS so that you need a tripod. But there are the times where you are walking through a museum or some exhibition or whatever and there is not enough light to shoot at a decent shutter speed, to be able to get away with 1/8th the normal speed can be very useful.

I currently have the 28-135IS and often don't need the IS, but sometimes I do need it and are very grateful to have the option. Of course with the 70-200 there is a better aperture, but it is also a longer lens. With f2.8 and a newer IS that gains 3 stops (my 28-135 only gains 2 stops from its IS) it will be a better low light lens.

I have shot at 1/15 handheld at 135mm successfully with my 28-135 IS with a greater number of useable shots then I can get off my 75-300 at 1/30, and that required ISO 3200 to get the 1/30 which had too much noise.

I now limit my ISO to 1600 max, I know that 3200 is OK if shrinking the picture to 1/4 x 1/4 of the original size, but I never shoot exclusively for the web. ISO 1600 + IS gives me pretty good low light ability.

It seems to be conventional wisdom - and what Canon itself claims - that you get two stops more stability, not three. In fact this doesn't matter because once in awhile you'll get four stops and once in awhile only one.

It has occured to me there should be two thought processes going on when you think of IS. When the focal length of the lens is fairly short - say a 24-85 - and the subject isn't moving like in a museum, then we should be thinking "Good pictures with slow shutterspeeds."

But with longer focal length lenses or where the subjects are moving then we should be thinking "Same fast shutterspeeds as before, but with much better results.", since we still need very fast shutterspeeds to control subject movement. So there's the 1/1000 of a second. But with IS that 1/1000 gives us the stability of 1/4000 and THAT would be useful.

Actually, I have found the night time action shots that I take under the lights require close proximity and my 550 flash and even then the results are questionable. My thinking is that the IS will be helpfull for the sideline type shots from a distance. These are shots of kids drinking water or convesing with the coach or each other etc... I am a novice and love this forum and am already learning far more than any class I could take... Thanks for responding.

DaveG wrote:

009randy wrote:
I have the Non-IS lens - even though I love the lens, I am going to upgrade to the IS version for the poor light conditions of shooting night time football and soccer games with my 10D. Anyone interested- its mint!? randy@thefig.com

I don't understand how IS helps you here.

The 70-200 is effectively a 112-320 mm lens. At 320 you shouldn't handhold it below 1/focal length, which is either 1/250 or 1/500 depending on how conservative you want to be. Now with IS you'll get two stops below that, say either 1/60 or 1/125.

So have the football players stopped running? As I said in an earlier comment it isn't camera movement that's the issue here, it's subject movement, and those shutterspeeds are too slow to freeze action.