70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS

the IS is worth it in my opinion, makes the lens much more versatile

calicokat wrote in post #2081697
the IS is worth it in my opinion, makes the lens much more versatile

Yes... but you're sick in the head aren't you?

What kind of photography do you do primarily? I've heard from the sports guys the don't like it. For the obvious reason that IS doesn't stop motion, so it's only useful for a more static scene.

I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS for concert photography; it's my workhorse. I'm more than pleased with the results I get:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

aacmckay wrote in post #2081719
Yes... but you're sick in the head aren't you?

What kind of photography do you do primarily? I've heard from the sports guys the don't like it. For the obvious reason that IS doesn't stop motion, so it's only useful for a more static scene.

I do shoot sports and yes the IS is not that important. But I also do weddings and corporate events where the IS is important, if money is an issue, get the non IS, but I think its worth the extra money, IS is another tool for the photographer to use

and thats my wife's opinion, well, she is probably right

Tee Why wrote in post #2080829
The optics are a bit softer per photozone.de at wide open and at the long end. The IS also uses up battery power.

The optics are softer overall or just when using IS?

Steve Parr wrote in post #2081758
I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS for concert photography; it's my workhorse. I'm more than pleased with the results I get:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

WOW! That's some purple fringing problem you've got there Steve.... You need to send that thing in and get it fixed

Steve Parr wrote in post #2081758
I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS for concert photography; it's my workhorse. I'm more than pleased with the results I get:

Nice shot Steve. Looks pretty good to me without IS.

Steve Parr wrote in post #2081758
I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS for concert photography; it's my workhorse. I'm more than pleased with the results I get:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Impressive shot considering the lighting available. Would you share whether it was handheld and focal length, shutter speed used?

I bet you'd be fine with the non-IS version. If you really want to shoot indoors in low light I'd sugest a fast prime of some sort. So far, it seems like I keep the IS on my 70-200 turned off most of the time. I bought it over the non-IS version mainly for the weather sealing. But weather sealing isn't going to be an issue as your camera isn't weather sealed. With the money you save you could also buy an 85/1.8 or a 100/2, either of which would be awesome in low light.

definitely depends on what you do

ill be using mine for sports so I don't need the IS

It is hard to go wrong with either one. One of the reasons i went with the IS (after owning the non IS version for 8 years) was that if the non IS goes out of production parts & service may be hard to find. My non IS version was a tad sharper than my new one. Both lenses are dynomite.

Can anyone post samples comparing non IS and IS? I'm curious.

The 28-135 is a TOY compared to the 70-200 IS.

Price-wise too. Biggest factor is what you can afford - there will always be something better for more money.

The 70-200 IS is a pretty big investment - but if you can do it, it's totally amazing. Theres a reason so many people have one and love them.

Edit: and I would definitely spend the extra few hundred and go for the IS if you're already going to be spending so much. Go through the shots you've taken - and the shots you want to take. With IS you get about 2 stops more - so your shutter speed can be like 50 when you would actually need 200 for a good shot.

Doesn't matter at all if youre regularly getting < 250 with a good ISO, but works wonders when you always have to raise your ISO or shooot lower than your focal range. I'd say do it if you can afford it, just in case.

I'm sure most of us all been in your shoes, don't stress to much over it. Get the one you can afford and have a blast with it.

70-200mm 2.8L is really wonderful lens, but you own EF 70-300 already. that should be a decent lens and I don't think that you would see much difference in a "real life" photography between these two. If you really have urge to buy something, why not EF-S 10-22mm or 17-55mm 2.8 . That is the range you are missing. Especially because you do a different styles of photography. If you didn't have 70-300mm then I agree 70-200mm would be my first choice, because, personaly I find more fun in telephotography.