Yet another 'what lens' question...but different

NorCalAl wrote in post #2109383
Yeah, I've been all over because of this issue. Like I said, the last buy kept me up at night so this time I decided not to go that route. I simply pushed the place order button and bought....the 70-200/2.8! I almost bought the IS, but explaining why there's a nearly two thousand dollar charge...well. Nah. Not after the 24-105 just a couple weeks ago.
Now of course is the hard part - waiting for it to get here.
Hey, you only live once. I hope.

that was your best choice, imo. good luck!

ed rader

I'm second-guessing myself right now and trying to decide (before they ship) if I should just bite the bullet and get the IS as well. I LOVE it on the 24-105, but I'm not sure if the 2.8 will obviate it. I already know it provides zero benefit for moving subjects, just my (ever-increasing) movements. Along with rich, I'd take going back a decade or two as well.

If you can afford it, by all means go for it. Otherwise you'll continue second guess yourself and not happy with the purchase.

NorCalAl wrote in post #2111136
I'm second-guessing myself right now and trying to decide (before they ship) if I should just bite the bullet and get the IS as well. I LOVE it on the 24-105, but I'm not sure if the 2.8 will obviate it. I already know it provides zero benefit for moving subjects, just my (ever-increasing) movements. Along with rich, I'd take going back a decade or two as well.

hell yeah! the more you spend the happier you'll be. that always works for me .

ed rader

Until you run Quicken....

Hold both lenses for yourself in a store. I have held both personally and I am getting the F4 just for the weight. I hate to say it, but comfort means a lot to me when I'm taking photos, that's why I have a 30D and not a Rebel as an example. The F4 is very light and a great lens to walk around with. I am beginning to think it will do okay for some indoor shooting too at school (lots of windows, etc.)

NorCalAl wrote in post #2111136
I'm second-guessing myself right now and trying to decide (before they ship) if I should just bite the bullet and get the IS as well. I LOVE it on the 24-105, but I'm not sure if the 2.8 will obviate it. I already know it provides zero benefit for moving subjects, just my (ever-increasing) movements. Along with rich, I'd take going back a decade or two as well.

Well, you made a great choice on the 70-200, I hve heard that the non IS is slightly sharper than the IS version, so you shouldnt be too disappointed.
Congratulations.
It is an exellent lens, i would love to have one, but i unfortunately have to invest more for the IS, since i will be doing a lot more indoor shots.

Either lens is great though, at least you have the 2.8 to help, thats a lot better than having a f/4 indoors. It can be done, but you have the edge now!
Have fun, and POST SOME PICS!!!!

I've heard that, too. I've not seen any tests that back it up, thankfully. The one on photozone indicated they felt they had a bad sample, so that would be the one exception. I think once you hit a certain point, it becomes almost inconsequential as the only person who could tell is the pixel peeper. I do that, to some extent, but I'm so much more interested in the result.
I had a few lenses when I started and thought they were good, tho I always thought in the back of my head something was lacking. Then I shot my 85/1.8 and went WOW! Since then, every Canon lens I've bought has brought on the same WOW factor - even the 28-105 I just sold. Sharpness is important - big part of the wow. So is contrast and color. But again, the end product is the most important thing. I think even the IS would supply that!