I think I messed up

I rented a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for the weekend to shoot my daughter's figure skating competition and now I think I'm going to have to buy one. This lens is frickin great. I shot her practice today and then went to the zoo and fired off four hundred or so pictures. I think that I double screwed myself because I might have to justify getting the IS version. For skating the non-IS is just fine, but for anything static I could really use the IS when the light gets low. Hauling a tripod around the zoo just doesn't work that well. Here's a couple from today. Both were shot on my 40D at f2.8, skating pic at ISO 3200, 1/640 and the hummingbird was at ISO 400, 1/500. Both converted in ACR and PP in CS4.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I miss up all the time according to my wife.

ive gone through the same thing a couple times:
playing with my buddies 16-35L and 70-200f2.8L IS led me to purchasing the 24-70L and the 70-200f2.8
and then recently playing with his 5d convinced me to purchase a 5d2.

I could not be happier with the 70-200, it is my favorite and sharpest lens, it is money very well spent.

That's what I keep telling myself, but convincing my wife of how good an "investment" it is, well, that's a different story. I think she's just about sold on the non-IS but the extra couple hundred for the IS might be a different story. We'll see how tomorrow goes first.

cueball wrote in post #8975082
Hauling a tripod around the zoo just doesn't work that well..

monopod?

You should rent a 200 f2 or 300 f2.8 just for the heck of it.

You guys are a bad influence. I didn't think about the monopod idea. How much does a good light weight monopod go for. Carbon fiber maybe? I have a 055XProB with a 488RC2 head. The head should be good for the monopod as well I would think.

Yeah, that happened to me too. I tried a 100-400L, and realised I really liked it. Luckily, someone had one for sale on this forum at a great price

I could also probably use a good CF monopod. I'm in to carbon Fibre nowadays, it's good for the environment

Z...

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is my favorite lens. It works great on the 40D for sports and it is simply outstanding on full frame for portraits. I would get the IS version unless you are only shooting sports.

Don't try a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, your pockets will be 3 g's lighter.

I have a dream. That dream is to have a 10-300 f1.4 for 200 dollars.

plasticmotif wrote in post #8975406
Don't try a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, your pockets will be 3 g's lighter.

I have a dream. That dream is to have a 10-300 f1.4 for 200 dollars.

Funny, I actually was just reading up on that particular sigma as well. How does it compare to both the IS and non-IS 70-200's?

I agree with you... Now you have to buy one!

IS is very useful, even at higher shutter speeds. It's not just for static subjects, by any means.

Yes, you can get by without IS. We all survived before Canon started offering it on lenses. But if at all possible, I'd want it on any telephoto lens, say 100mm and up.

jrscls wrote in post #8975260
The 70-200 f2.8 IS is my favorite lens. It works great on the 40D for sports and it is simply outstanding on full frame for portraits. I would get the IS version unless you are only shooting sports.

absolutely. It is (IMHO) the most versatile lens that canon (or anyone) makes.

timbop wrote in post #8977784
absolutely. It is (IMHO) the most versatile lens that canon (or anyone) makes.

its so great they made 4 variations!