mark_pierlot Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 <p>Unless you're always shooting from a tripod, it just doesn't make any sense not to have IS on longer lenses if it's available. Keith and David are spot on in their analyses, and their posts are well worth reading by anyone debating the IS vs. non-IS question. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 <p>I have the non-IS version and I use it a lot for outdoor soccer (full size fields). I shoot from the endzone. It's usually on a 1ds2. I have the 300f4 IS on a 1d2 which generally gets more use. I've had the 300 for about 6 years, I've never used the IS for any sports, and only for a handful of outdoor scenic type shot.</p> <p>I also have the 200 2.8 and it's fantastic wide open.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_delisio Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 <p>I am surprised no one has mentioned the canon 70-300 L IS. Agreed it is not cheap and may be more than the OP wants to spend since it is priced higher than the 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is a great lens.</p> <p>I bought it on a recommendation from a friend even though I already have the 70-200 f/4 IS I have not regretted it and use it far more than I ever expected. It is heavier and a bit slower but the image quality is great and now I find that I use the 70-200 only when traveling/trekking where the weight really matters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now