Its not as if I can afford it anyway

But I was just wondering -

Is there any point buying the 70-200 f\4 or f\2.8 without the IS?

I mean, very often going into the wild you dont have an oppertunity to use a tripod, so you have to rely on hand held stability.

Those of you who have baught the non IS version - do you find this a problem? Do you succeed in catching good photos - hand held?

Thanks!

Of course there's a point to it. Having or not having the focal length you feel you need is the point. I have the 70-200L f/4 and have never missed IS.

IS is great (I'm just now finding that out), but its not a "deal killer". A lot of people on this site swear by third party suppliers like sigma and tamron, neither of which offer IS ('cept the 80-400 sig), and they're rated very highly.

IS could be treated as a bonus point in favor of one lens over another lacking IS in the selection of lenses IMO, but it isn't essential to have it, by any means.

once youve had it youll wish youd never have to handle anything without it...hehehe....im IS addicted

I'm the opposite of ccp900, I own the Canon 70-200 2.8L, love it to death, tried the IS version, and didn't like the IS. Maybe its the way I shoot, I like to focus and then compose things a certain way, but when I hit the IS it freezes that image in my viewfinder, and composing is a pain in the ass. I also have never found the lens to be heavy, resulting in any sort of camera shake, and I will comfortable shoot it at speeds as low as 1/30 handheld. With the way digital cameras are today, high ISO rarely causes a lot of noise, in Canon DSLR's anyways, so bumping up the ISO to gain that faster shutter and avoiding the IS has never been a problem for me. Just my 2 cents.

Hmm, I'm happy to hear this actually, because I was afarid if I get the 80-200 non IS I'll be sorry.

n.e.photo, can you post some of your photos, so I can see what the IQ is like handheld?

Thanks

Gidi Morris wrote in post #2181611
But I was just wondering -

Is there any point buying the 70-200 f\4 or f\2.8 without the IS?

I mean, very often going into the wild you dont have an oppertunity to use a tripod, so you have to rely on hand held stability.

Those of you who have baught the non IS version - do you find this a problem? Do you succeed in catching good photos - hand held?

Thanks!

It's the user not the lens, I have a 75-300 IS USM lens but my 70-200mm f/2.8 is NON-IS. Manly for cost savings. Good photos are what you make of them not the gear.

Constant aperture f/2.8 zoom are always of value with or with out IS. IS is yet another tool, it's not the source of insperation or the photo itself.

I have the 70-200 f4. I kicked myself a bit when the IS version was announced 6 weeks after I bought the non-IS. Now I couldn't care less. It is far too expensive for me now and as much as I love the IS on my 300 I dont find I need it on the 70-200. It is small and light so I tend to find I can hand hold it reasonably well if not I'll bump the ISO until I can

n.e.photo wrote in post #2182110
I'm the opposite of ccp900, I own the Canon 70-200 2.8L, love it to death, tried the IS version, and didn't like the IS. Maybe its the way I shoot, I like to focus and then compose things a certain way, but when I hit the IS it freezes that image in my viewfinder, and composing is a pain in the ass. I also have never found the lens to be heavy, resulting in any sort of camera shake, and I will comfortable shoot it at speeds as low as 1/30 handheld. With the way digital cameras are today, high ISO rarely causes a lot of noise, in Canon DSLR's anyways, so bumping up the ISO to gain that faster shutter and avoiding the IS has never been a problem for me. Just my 2 cents.

DSLR's by Canon don't have electronic viewfinders, so there is no way that an IS lens is going to freeze the image in your viewfinder. You might see a little bump through the finder when the IS first engages...but it doesn't effect the viewing and focusing beyond that. Composing an image with an IS lens is absolutely no different than composing an image with a non-IS lens.

For the OP...there is nothing wrong with having a non-IS lens. As long as you can maintain a satisfactory shutter speed to avoid image blur...a non-IS lens is just as capable as an IS version. Keep your shutter speeds over 1/focal length and you should be golden.

IS is great but you can certainly live without it!

It won't freeze a moving subject, but camera shake is a very real problem, often mistaken for 'softness' caused by the lens itself.

A tripod, while a pain in the rear, is a much under-utilised tool!

You don't need the IS. It's nice to have, but you don't need it. there used to be a time when IS didn't even exist.

If you don't need IS and weathersealing and prefer a lighter lens that's ever-so-slightly sharper - not to mention cheaper... Absolutely.

Just build your upper body strength and use a faster shutter speed. None of my lenses are IS.

photographers from the ealier years never used IS but survived with great and legendary photos.

i can't imagine why we cannot do it in our generation.

GlennSter wrote in post #2183299
photographers from the ealier years never used IS but survived with great and legendary photos.

i can't imagine why we cannot do it in our generation.

I think that says it all !

I have the non-IS version of the 70-200 2.8. While I haven't used the IS version, I think improving on the quality of the non-IS would be tough. Cost saving was my main reason for going with the non-IS... I certainly don't regret my decision.