Am I crazy to consider getting the 70-200L f/2.8 IS

I'm finding more and more that the 70-200L f/2.8 IS does not only give fantastic results consistently but it is easy to use. My 50 1.4 can produce amazingly sharp images but if you forget and let it open up or accidentally shake the camera a little the deletion rate goes way up. This just doesn’t happen with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS. It is still sharp at 2.8.

This is a great lens. It was my first lens with my 20D and i Love it. I shoot nivht football games with it and it is great. GET IT.

Awesome lens! Always go for the better glass over a new body!

This lens is about as good as it gets - don't hesitate if you're already considering it.

It even does macro: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=220767

Not crazy, very wise

Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is more bang per buck...

It's the best Zoom Canon makes as far as AF speed and IQ go.

surfologist wrote in post #2042201
Most definately.... Get the lens.

You will be happy with it, and if you dont get the IS, or if you get the f/4, or if you just completley cheese out and just get the EF 70-300, you will always wish you would have gotten the best.

I didn't get the IS, the 70-200 non-IS cost about $900 used and I had just enough money to buy it with a 20D, I couldn't be happier, the camera was an upgrade from the 300D. I still haven't been in a situation where I needed IS. Either I can find something to support the camera on or I've got my tripod, or I can just hold the camera very still.

Gatorboy wrote in post #2043399
If you are going to shoot action -- get the 2.8L -- save your money by not getting the IS version. The shutter speeds you will be using for sports will be fast enough to make the IS not needed.

Perhaps you should say if all you are going to shoot handheld is action/sports...

Which I still don't agree with, but at least its more accurate.

You can still "stop" action with some (unimportant) motion blur and be in the camera shake zone on a crop sensor body.


But in the end only the buyer can really decide if IS is worth the cost difference.

Personally, I've never regretted the decision to get the IS version.

You are crazy to think anyone on this forum would tell you not to buy it, post this message on a different forum (cycling, motorsports anything really) and they will call u crazy.

You have a need for it, so go buy it and enjoy I say

Oh and share some pics when you do

zakabog wrote in post #2044633
I didn't get the IS, the 70-200 non-IS cost about $900 used and I had just enough money to buy it with a 20D, I couldn't be happier, the camera was an upgrade from the 300D. I still haven't been in a situation where I needed IS. Either I can find something to support the camera on or I've got my tripod, or I can just hold the camera very still.

That is good, I am glad it worked out for you...
If I didnt need IS, i would definately save the 600 or so dollars and not get IS. you probably made a good choice. But i will need IS, because i will most likeley be doing a lot of lo light, hand help photos, without tripod, and sometime it is hard to hold the camera still. (Esp. when i have had a lot of caffine...)
I can get great shots at 1sec shutter speed using IS, but sometimes, it is just not all that easy to do it without, so IS is a great help for me.

I dont konw everyones situation, so i just tell them to get it anyway, and maybe they will need it in the future, and if not, they can flaunt to their friends that they have a 2000 dollar lens....

Hey, a little crazy IS a good thing

I bought the non-IS and sold it. The weight was too much for me w/o IS. So, I always recommend the IS (bought the 100-400 IS and found it to work just fine) if people are even slightly concerned about the weight/camera shake. Be a little crazy and buy the lens

Permagrin wrote in post #2044711
Hey, a little crazy IS a good thing

I bought the non-IS and sold it. The weight was too much for me w/o IS. So, I always recommend the IS (bought the 100-400 IS and found it to work just fine) if people are even slightly concerned about the weight/camera shake. Be a little crazy and buy the lens

LOL... how do you like the 100-400L?
I am going to get one after my 70-200, for car and horse racing, bu i am concerned about the f/4.5. i think that as soon as a could covers the sun, it will be too dark. I live in florida, so i dont think the sun will be too much of a problem, but still, do you ever have any problems with it?

If i have a 70-200, with a 2x on it, it will be 140-400, and what will the f stop be at?
would that be better than buying a whole nother lens? it will def be cheaper.

surfologist wrote in post #2045058
LOL... how do you like the 100-400L?
I am going to get one after my 70-200, for car and horse racing, bu i am concerned about the f/4.5. i think that as soon as a could covers the sun, it will be too dark. I live in florida, so i dont think the sun will be too much of a problem, but still, do you ever have any problems with it?

If i have a 70-200, with a 2x on it, it will be 140-400, and what will the f stop be at?
would that be better than buying a whole nother lens? it will def be cheaper.

I don't have a TC so I don't know what the conversion would be. the 100-400 is a little slow in the dark but not in the sun. And it's fine in moderate light. I LOVE it. But it's not speedy (but neither is the 5D, which is what I use it with). I shot whales from a great distance on a very cloudy/overcast day and had no prob. catching the shots.

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is my favorite lens and is the one I reach for most often. I have never regretted getting it.