i really need to get this lens. i rent the one with IS everytime i shoot a larger concert; have never shot with out the IS. IS is not light and more expensive. i am happy with what the IS produces. any thoughts one this subject?
thelightofsound Goldmember  1,399 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2006 Location: Atlanta More info | Oct 09, 2006 10:41 | #1 i really need to get this lens. i rent the one with IS everytime i shoot a larger concert; have never shot with out the IS. IS is not light and more expensive. i am happy with what the IS produces. any thoughts one this subject? --atlanta photographer michael saba
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SoaringUSAEagle Daddy Of The Crop  10,814 posts Likes: 3 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Cheyenne, WY More info | Oct 09, 2006 11:03 | #2 Well if you are happy and are constantly renting it... Doesn't it make sense to go the extra few hundred bucks and get it? I own it and love it. I wish I had it for the concerts I went to during the summer but only had the f/4 at the time. 5D4 | 50 1.4 | 85L II | 24-70L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
badrotation Senior Member 390 posts Joined Apr 2005 More info | Oct 09, 2006 11:28 | #3 Yep, if you can toss the money towards it, get it... It has saved my butt a few times when I would have otherwise needed a tripod (shots around sunrise/sunset). I only have it turned on about 1/2 the time (it likes to suck up batteries), but I definitely use it quite often.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
thanks for the input, but let me change the question. --atlanta photographer michael saba
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JNunn Senior Member 538 posts Joined May 2006 More info | Oct 09, 2006 11:47 | #5 thelightofsound wrote in post #2096805  thanks for the input, but let me change the question. non-IS used for $550 -or- IS new for $1650 and fwiw, i can not afford either right now. If you're just talking hypothetically, the non IS used one is a no-brainer! But if you'd really like to own and buy one or the other, with everything being equal, I'd save my pennies and get the IS. I personally have the f/4 version, am extremely happy with it, and don't intend to upgrade.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sonnyc Cream of the Crop 5,175 posts Likes: 36 Joined Jun 2005 Location: san jose More info | Oct 09, 2006 11:50 | #6 |
Oct 09, 2006 12:01 | #7 Here is my experience. I have the 70-200 f4 (Of course no IS!) and a 300mm f4 IS. The IS blows me away with how sharper the images are. Don't get me wrong a non IS version of the 70-200 is pretty sharp but it has higher odds of camera shake then the IS version. Christopher J. Martin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
that's y'all for the input. cjm, i think you have sold me on the IS. --atlanta photographer michael saba
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Permagrin High Priestess of all I survey  77,915 posts Likes: 21 Joined Aug 2006 Location: day dreamin' More info | Oct 09, 2006 13:23 | #9 thelightofsound wrote in post #2097179 that's y'all for the input. cjm, i think you have sold me on the IS. as for the $550 used one; that was prob just an "all talk" offer. i don't even have contact information of the person, they just have mine. i guess i'll just stick to renting the IS until i can figure out how to make more money off my photography so i can invest more. Well, if you can buy the 70-200 F2.8 for $550, DO IT! Then re-sell it for almost double (I sold mine a few months ago for almost $1100) and then your extra $ towards the IS version will be taken care of. .. It's Permie's world, we just live in it! ~CDS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 09, 2006 13:27 | #10 Permagrin wrote in post #2097191 Well, if you can buy the 70-200 F2.8 for $550, DO IT! Then re-sell it for almost double (I sold mine a few months ago for almost $1100) and then your extra $ towards the IS version will be taken care of. great point; i guess i didn't think about that. but next question would be why would someone pay 1100 used when that is the price of a new? --atlanta photographer michael saba
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Permagrin High Priestess of all I survey 77,915 posts Likes: 21 Joined Aug 2006 Location: day dreamin' More info | Oct 09, 2006 13:31 | #11 thelightofsound wrote in post #2097215 great point; i guess i didn't think about that. but next question would be why would someone pay 1100 used when that is the price of a new? LIke I said, I just sold mine on Ebay for that, with shipping. Used L lenses go so high, it's unbelievable. I lost about $100 from my original purchase (and because I got a triple rebate, I actually made money on the transaction). You'd make money, whether or not it was double, it definitely will be close. As long as it's the 2.8 and not the f/4. (which sells for around $500-$525 used) .. It's Permie's world, we just live in it! ~CDS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DoubleNegative *sniffles*  10,533 posts Likes: 11 Joined Mar 2006 Location: New York, USA More info | Oct 10, 2006 15:37 | #12 IMO, IS on this zoom is a match made in heaven. If you can use the IS and can spring for the extra dosh - go for it. You certainly won't regret it. La Vida Leica!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
well i heard back from the guy that made the offer of selling his non IS lens. he said $500 plus some of my photography. he bought the lens in 99. --atlanta photographer michael saba
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2779 guests, 169 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
