70-200L 2.8 - IS OR NOT??? (i could use some help)

Don't know if I saw this answered but yes the more telephoto mm you have the more you generally need IS because of the inherent need for higher shutter speeds and the fact that smaller camera movements create more camera shake on longer telephoto's. So IF you use IS then it is more important on 200 mm than 100mm, etc.

My 2 cents:

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS was the first "really nice" lens that I purchased and I have never regretted opting for IS. As others have mentioned, if you are shooting outdoor sports in daylight, you probably don't need IS or even f/2.8. And, as you know, IS won't help with motion blur when your shutter speeds are slow.

But the combination of fast lens with IS makes it very versatile which was important to me. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS works very well for me when photographing my daughter's orchestra concerts. With the stage lighting, f/2.8 @ ISO 400 is just good enough to shutter speeds around 1/60s. I am always hand holding the camera at these events, so the IS helps a lot. And, since the subjects are sitting relatively still, motion blur isn't an issue. And what motion blur there is, such as the movement of a bow arm/hand conveys movement and adds an artistic quality IMO.

Now, my daughter's dance recitals are another matter altogether. Under the same stage lighting, f/2.8 isn't nearly fast enough to get shutter speeds fast enough to freeze a fast moving dancer, hence the faster primes. And when the shutter speeds are fast enough to stop the dancers, I don't need IS.

That's exactly what I believe. When I decided to get a 70-200, I couldn't justify the Canon IS, so I settled with the Sigma 70-200 which served me very well. The quality is on a par with the Canon (non-IS). After using the Sigma for 8 months, I just upgraded to the IS.

i am planning to buy this lens too. The F/4 L IS looks promising, but i think if you need the low light capability, the f/2.8 IS may be more useful for you.

I dont have IS on mine, works great for me!

Let us know when you get it...............

Don't forget to post some nice "duck" images toooo

The answer is different for everyone. Without knowing what you'll be shooting with it and what your priorities are, it's impossible to say it would be worth the extra $500.

That being said, if money is no problem, go ahead and get the IS as there is bound to be at least a small percentage of shots where IS will prove valuable.

If money is an issue, then the question is more about whether or not the type of shooting you do (most often) would benefit from having IS?

The answer is not the same for everyone and that's why every version of this popular range has it's fans and detractors.

I find the extra stop of light of the f/2.8L to be valuable to me, but don't find myself wanting IS very much at all considering the price differential.

Your needs are not likely the same as mine, nor everyone else's. Figure out what is best for you and then get the lens that fit's YOU the best.

Regards,
Jeff

I ws in the same delima as you a few weeks ago and asked the same question, but in the sports forum https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=197304. I have decided to go with the 70-200L IS. I am just waiting to make a trip to the US to buy mine. Hope fully by the end of this month i should have it.

surfologist wrote:
Hey meaty, thanks for the very well thought out, and inspiring post. I admire your amazing contemplation on this intense subject.
I look forward to you future support!

Hey! Do I detect a slight whiff of sarcasm there?

Okay, it seems you doubt my sincerity. Just for the moment, put all the "pumping iron, bicep-building" qualities of this beast-of-a-lens aside and consider the image of mine below...

AlexMa wrote:
Let us know when you get it...............

Don't forget to post some nice "duck" images toooo

Ducks were actually the first thing i was planning on making my 'victim' haha

The pictures on this site ( the ones taken By Paul Patterson) were used with the 70-200mm IS, I used the 20d, not bad, it's very usefull
http://parisiconsultin​g.com/wrmrrc/091006.ht​m

Get the IS if your funds permit
even shooting birds in daylight at 200mm if tough IS helps a lot when you dont' have time for a tripod

I went with the non-IS myself. Do I wonder what could have been had I spent the extra for the IS, of course I do every now and again. I simply couldn't justify the difference in price for what is at best a hobby(lol, still haven't figured out a way to justify the non-IS).

If I run into a situation where I need to slow down the shutter I just stick it on a mono or tri as I'll always seem to have one or the other on hand.

With approximately the same money of the IS you can get some of the best Canon primes:

Canon 85 f/1.8: $330.00
Canon 135/2L: $869.95
Canon 200/2.8L II: $639.95

Have you considered this?

Alex