70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS

I'm already thinking about the next piece of equipment to get for my camera, and my 580EX hasn't even arrived yet. :P

I'm thinking I might save up for 70-200 f/2.8. I want to go for the f/2.8 cause if there's one thing I've learned this year, it's fast lenses rock! However I'm still unsure about the IS vs. non-IS. I own one IS lens already the EF28-135 USM IS. I find that I use the IS everyonce in a while. Though I know that most of the time I just want a faster lens to keep the shutter speed up. Going to a f/2.8 lens will be nice, but will I still need IS on this lens? There's quite the price jump adding the IS, so budget may dictate that I won't get it. However I'm curious how many people out there have the IS version of the lens, and how often do you actually use the IS? I'd likely invest in a monopod with the lens anyways, so that might be the solution to keeping the lens still and getting lower shutter speeds.

If anyone knows of a good thread in the archives regarding this issue you can point me to it as well. I'm sifting through them as I find time.

First of all, both lenses are great (though the non IS probably has a very slight optical advantage).

Second, what do you shoot mostly? If it's for sports, IS will not help, as you will need a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion, which will likely be faster than the threshold of handholding.

If you shoot fairly static subjects in dimmer light, then the IS will help. Or even with moving subjects it will help for panning, keeping vertical movement minimised.

THe 2.8 is heavy, so maybe you need the IS more than on your 28-135.
Also , the 200 zoom introduces more motion blur, compared to the 135.

(my choice for the non-IS is just based on budget)

IS has weather sealing and would allow for about 3 stops handholding.

On the down side, it's about 1/2 pound heavier (which may induce more handshake) and about $500 more expensive. The optics are a bit softer per photozone.de at wide open and at the long end. The IS also uses up battery power.

I owned the IS 2.8 version sold it for the non IS 2.8

why, because I found I didn't need the IS and it was a waste of money for me. Now with the none IS 2.8 I am happy, if that rare time comes around i'll put it on my tripod or I will use the monopod.

The weight wasn't that bad, at least to me it wasn't. IQ was equal on both copies, I could not tell a difference between the two.

And with the IS I didn't notice a drastic loss of battery power. Slight yes, but not that bad. Always good to have spares anyways.

Hello aacmckay,

I too, own the 28-135 IS and find that it does take the one second time requirement for the IS to stabilize before a sharper image will result...

I am also shopping for the next lens and am considering the 70-200 2.8L...

The IS, at least for my needs isn't fast enough, because of the 1 second set up needed for it to work...

Therefore, the IS might be out of the picture for me...

Thanks for the info guys. I guess what it comes down to is first of all budget, and what my personal requirements are. I'm an serious amateur photographer. I don't really have a particiular thing that I shoot. I just shoot whatever/whenever. This makes it hard to decide what to invest in at times. Looks like it will be budget that will dictate this decision for me. I'm not sure when I'll get the money for this investment, but I'm hoping it happens before next summer.

Gabbana: Did you find that the monopod helped out in most situations when you were dealing with low light?

Got the 70-200mm F2.8 Non IS and i love it for what i use it for sports photography etc doesnt need IS.

What are you mainly shooting?

It depends on the user and uses.
I went with the IS because:
I do handhold alot.
I do shoot alot of static subjects.
Monopods and tripods aren't always convenient for me to carry around.
IS mode2 rocks for panning.
IS makes it the easiest to handhold, followed by the light f4 version, and the 2.8 non-IS is the least easy to hand-hold.

Thats me,
You plan to use a mono- or tripod and have a budget so the 70-200 2.8 sounds like your lens.

Big WIll wrote in post #2081167
Got the 70-200mm F2.8 Non IS and i love it for what i use it for sports photography etc doesnt need IS.

What are you mainly shooting?

As I mentioned I don't really have a niche yet. Just a general photographer. I suspect most of the time I'll be like you and be able to shoot without IS. Next summer I'm hoping to door more outdoor even photography. People, nature, that kind of stuff. So that's why I'm wondering about the IS, I think in those situations it's not going to do much for me....

I guess in some ways I've answered my own question. But I don't want to by the lens and the regret not getting the IS.

In situations where I decided to use this lens in lower light (likely people photography at parties) would are there any forseen issues using it with fill flash? Or would it tend to get in the way of the flash an cast a nasty shadow?

aacmckay wrote in post #2081126
Gabbana: Did you find that the monopod helped out in most situations when you were dealing with low light?

Monopod is fine to a point when and if I needed it, but a tripod will always win.

What if you did this. Rent one of each if you can and see what you like or buy the none IS and as you use it you find you just really need the IS and don't want to hassel with a tripod then you can always sell it to buy the IS version plus put up a few extra hundred. Just a thought. But trust me if you go none IS you will not regret it. I think I'm going to pull mine out now and go take some pictures.

aacmckay wrote in post #2081448
As I mentioned I don't really have a niche yet. Just a general photographer. I suspect most of the time I'll be like you and be able to shoot without IS. Next summer I'm hoping to door more outdoor even photography. People, nature, that kind of stuff. So that's why I'm wondering about the IS, I think in those situations it's not going to do much for me....

I guess in some ways I've answered my own question. But I don't want to by the lens and the regret not getting the IS.

In situations where I decided to use this lens in lower light (likely people photography at parties) would are there any forseen issues using it with fill flash? Or would it tend to get in the way of the flash an cast a nasty shadow?

I use it with the 580ex at parties or receptions with excellent results by bounce it off the walls or ceilings, no nasty shadows.

This topic gets clobbered to death at least once a week. There are diehards on both sides of the fence.

From what you have divulged, YOU may find IS is useful anywhere from 10% of the time to 90% of the time. You haven't given anyone a good enough idea of what you shoot to make a firm recommendation. But, if you are just taking all sorts of pictures and you have to funds, you may as well get the IS.

I'm a non-IS guy and have no plans to change, but the main purpose for my 70-200 f/2.8L is sports photography and IS is not a requirement for the way I shoot.

YOUR needs may vary quite a bit. If in doubt and you have the money, get the IS and get to snappin'!

Gabbana wrote in post #2081451
Monopod is fine to a point when and if I needed it, but a tripod will always win.

What if you did this. Rent one of each if you can and see what you like or buy the none IS and as you use it you find you just really need the IS and don't want to hassel with a tripod then you can always sell it to buy the IS version plus put up a few extra hundred. Just a thought. But trust me if you go none IS you will not regret it. I think I'm going to pull mine out now and go take some pictures.

I think I can get my hands on the IS version without renting. I think someone I know has one. Glad to know I won't regret the purchase either way.

Gabbana wrote in post #2081460
I use it with the 580ex at parties or receptions with excellent results by bounce it off the walls or ceilings, no nasty shadows.

Good to know. I invested in the 580EX alread and it's good to know that it works well with the lens I'm considering.

Big Hands wrote in post #2081639
This topic gets clobbered to death at least once a week. There are diehards on both sides of the fence.

From what you have divulged, YOU may find IS is useful anywhere from 10% of the time to 90% of the time. You haven't given anyone a good enough idea of what you shoot to make a firm recommendation. But, if you are just taking all sorts of pictures and you have to funds, you may as well get the IS.

I'm a non-IS guy and have no plans to change, but the main purpose for my 70-200 f/2.8L is sports photography and IS is not a requirement for the way I shoot.

YOUR needs may vary quite a bit. If in doubt and you have the money, get the IS and get to snappin'!

Thanks for your input. I figured that this was a topic that was clobbered a lot, that's why I was looking in the archives as well. Hadn't come across a good thread yet, though I haven't finished looking either.

I think at this point I'm leaning to not get the IS, as I can get away with using a flash with it no problem. As mentioned earlier in the thread if later I find I really need IS I can turn around sell the lens and front a few hundred dollars.