which 70-200 lens

<p>as much as I want the canon 70-200 2.8 IS it is just out of the budget.<br>

Any other thoughts on good lenses?<br>

I was thinking either the sigma, Tamron or the Tokina 85-200</p>

<p>If you can't afford the 2.8 version, why not get the 4.0 instead? I would stay away from 3rd party lenses - the quality of the 70-200 f/4.0 IS is legendary.</p>

<p>Or, the even better Canon 70-200/4 L. You also have the Canon 70-200/2.8 L. Both of these do not have IS but how often are you taking pictures of non-moving subjects in very lowlight?</p>

<p>Of course the real bargain if you can live without zoom is the Canon 200mm f2.8 L prime.</p>

3rd party equipment can be hit or miss. recommend (canon's) 70-200 f4 (IS or non-IS) or the canon 200 2.8

<p>I also suggest a non IS version or even a non IS used Canon over 3rd party. I have the 2.8 Non IS and its exceptional. IS is great but its not useful all the time and if you shoot anything moving at all its almost useless. </p>

<p><em>"As much as I want the canon 70-200 2.8 IS it is just out of the budget.<br />Any other thoughts on good lenses?"</em></p>

<p>Get the non IS version, it's the best 70-200 on the market. IS is NOT a "must have" by any means.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

My first post to this forum. I am likewise considering the purchase of the Canon 70-200mm. The f/2.8 has me captivated. The two main disadvantages are the weight and the cost.<br>

I appreciate the comments by John Crowe and Ken Papai. However I cannot find a side by side review of the two. Main reason for purchase is for a general purpose mid telephoto zoom that can be used for portrait (f/2.8 for DoF/selective focus), sports (mainly where I am fairly close to the action) and travel (inc. candid portraits). I prefer a zoom to a prime to avoid changing lenses on holiday as most of the places we tend to go are kinda hot and dusty and I like to keep the lens on the camera.<br>

Long shot...has anyone experience of both? Does IS make such a difference. If it doesn't, then is seems like a large premium to pay for an extra function that makes the lens more vulnerable to fail.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

David</p>

<p>A Gold Standard site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>VERY comprehensive on its Canon lens comparisons.</p>

<p>Just do a search on here, there are many threads comparing all the 70-200's. </p>

<p>They are all good. Pick the one you can afford and the one that you can carry comfortably. Do you need 2.8? Can you tote 3+ pounds? If you are a professional earning your living with this lens get the 2.8 IS version. I notice that recently Art Wolf is carrying the 4.0 IS version on his travels. I like mine a lot. Good luck</p>

<p>70-200 f2.8L, or 70-200 f4L or 70-200 f4L IS. Toss a coin.</p>

<p>I have the 2.8L love it and would likely purchase this version again. My son has the f4 but prefers his because it is lighter and a bit smaller.</p>

<p>70-200 f4 L IS if your unwilling to use a tripod. This may be your best choice since you mentioned candid portraits which sounds like you will do a lot of hand holding.</p>

<p>Can't go wrong with any of them. The photos you get will depend on your technique, not any difference in lens quality.</p>

<p>As for sports (high school cross country and track) a monopod has proven helpful to me, especially with vertical pictures in keeping the focus point where I want it. Sure I can get shutter speed high enough to stop movement, but focusing has been better with a monopod.</p>

<p>IS is most useful when handholding longer lenses to shoot still or slow moving subjects. For these applications, I'd definitely recommend the 70-200/4 IS L. Furthermore, the f/4 IS is reportedly the sharpest of the four EF 70-200's.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.<br>

I have looked around the photo.net site and the digital-picture.com sites. I think that it is going to be the f2.8 with the IS. The reviews seem to imply this is very effective. The sports will be high-school, of my son and daughter (that's spooky you guessed that Kerry!) .<br>

I am really grateful to all that have taken the time to respond.<br>

[Ken and Tommy: I will take the time to do the search first next time! Thanks for being tolerant.]<br>

Thanks again,<br>

David</p>

<p>I use my 70-200 f2.8 IS quite a lot. If I had the choice of the 2.8 non IS or the f4 with IS I would take the f4 with IS almost every time. Those who don't feel the need for IS simply do not push themselves hard enough. It is not about non moving subjects in the dark, it is about subject anticipation, there are stopping points/peaks in almost all movements and action. Both 70-200 IS versions have modes 1 and 2, if you haven't tried panning shots with mode 2 then you have missed out, it is very good.</p>

<p>I am a complete IS convert, as soon as the 24-70 f2.8 IS comes out I will upgrade. Why? So that shots like this work better. I did get a sharp version of this image too but with IS the couple of seconds that I had this framing could have been used better. Why not just bump up the iso? This image is worthy of poster sized printing and the quality that demands, however good 400 or 800 or 1600 are they are not as good as 200.</p>

<div></div>

<p><em>"Those who don't feel the need for IS simply do not push themselves hard enough. "</em></p>

<p>I have no idea what that is supposed to mean -- maybe aimed at beginners? Sounds like it. I understand WELL the pros/cons of I.S. It AIN'T a must have. </p>

<p>No need to apologize David, just not sure if you are aware of the search on here.<br /> <br /> As to the OP. I may be the minority here but I find very little use for IS. Maybe I am pretty steady or maybe its my subject matter ( usually moving or studio setups with light ) but the 2.8 Non IS does very well for me. I do have a 24-105 with IS and I would say on average the IS helps about 10% of the time for me but with F4 I need it more. I am not saying I do not want IS or its bad but depending on you it may not be as useful as you would think.<br /> <br /> I have only used the 2.8 Non Is and its super sharp even wide open, I hear they are all good though. I would seriously consider the used route if you go non IS. People are always dumping them to get IS. I got mine for a great price used. They are tanks so just inspect it to make sure the glass is in good shape.</p>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>How can you possibly never run into camera shake as a limiting factor? Every photographer in existence has ruined a few frames from camera shake, I don't believe you are the exception. I certainly find it hard to believe any pros still need convincing of the benefits of IS. No IS is not a must have, in the same way that auto focus and digital are not must haves, but they sure make life easier and get the keeper rate up.</p>

<p>My point was if you are not pushing the boundaries of handholdability then you are not pushing yourself, if you are pushing those boundaries then IS will help.</p>

<p>Here's a hand-held shot that would have turned out far worse without IS.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the f2.8 IS version, which was the only IS version available when I bought, but would have considered the f4.0 IS, had it been available: almost exactly <em>half</em> the weight, reputedly slightly sharper, newer IS (supposedly good for one more stop?), etcetera. The weight of the 2.8 can become significant on a long walk.</p>

<p>IS surely can be helpful but I think this is a bit off topic to the op. Sure everyone would love a 70-200 2.8 IS but not everyone can afford one or even feel the need to spend that much on a lens assuming many here are not making a living on photography or just want to spend an extra $500 to have IS. Its funny when someone asks about a lens someone always suggests the best lens made and not a lens within the budget of the post. I think the question is would you take a Canon non IS tele. lens over a Tamron or Sigma? </p>

<p>Tommy,</p>

<p>My first point was to choose the f4 IS over the 2.8 non IS if you can't afford the 2.8 IS, so I was on message. As an extension to that, especially where the four Canon 70-200's are concerned, I would definitely get the best one I could afford, or would want to pay for my hobby, rather than get an off brand "higher spec" one.</p>

<p>Besides I like the way threads ramble, isn't that the best way to learn new stuff?</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Go for Canon.<br>

The 200mm f2.8L is a lot of lens for the money.<br>

Your choice after that will be dictated in some degree by the body you use:<br>

APS-C : The 70-200 f2.8 non-IS has a better rep as it is slightly sharper and stands up to the cropping better than the still very good IS version.<br>

You really want the f2.8 version on most cropped bodies to get the best out of the AF system.<br>

The f2.8 over f4 is also a stop of difference, so faster shutter is possible which may even negate the use of IS altogether for many users.<br>

I find the limiting factor with telephoto lenses is actually motion blur from the subject, not the camera. Higher ISO or faster shutter come ahead of IS for this artefact. <br>

I don't understand the 'not pushing themselves' comment either. But then I am merely a hobbyist who enjoys his photography. I'm going to get the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS after christmas, not to appear pro, but to save my back. I will still, and will always have a superclamp or tripod with me at all times.</p>

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I explained the comment like this<em> "My point was if you are not pushing the boundaries of handholdability then you are not pushing yourself, if you are pushing those boundaries then IS will help."</em></p>

<p>So what if you are a hobbyist, you would benefit from IS as much as anybody. At less than 10 ounces between the 2.8 non IS and the IS version weight is not the best determining factor for getting the non IS version. Price and perceived need are better factors for discounting the IS. Same as IQ, anybody that gets a non IS version because they believe the IQ is noticeably better than an IS version simply hasn't used the two in the real world.</p>

<p>There is a need and market for all four of Canon's 70-200 lenses, it is one of the most popular threads on this forum, it makes sense to talk about peoples preferences and requirements and help them to choose the one that would work for them best, but some people don't translate their experience to the poster. How any pro could not recommend IS to nearly anybody but very specific (<strong>always</strong> well supported or well lite) users I don't know. I have lost too many images to camera shake, I know I am not the only one.</p>

<p>You will never regret the Sigma 70-200MM F2.8 HSM, this lens is so well balanced that no other lens in this range can beat it, careful not to come close to a nikon one and be sorry for the rest of your life.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 12, 2009; 04:26 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Same as IQ, anybody that gets a non IS version because they believe the IQ is noticeably better than an IS version simply hasn't used the two in the real world.</p>

 

<p>At less than 10 ounces between the 2.8 non IS and the IS version weight is not the best determining factor for getting the non IS version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Scott, my back comment was down to the fact that I am currently carrying around a 70 f2.8 (sigma) 135 f2.8 Canon and the 200 f2.8, not about any weight difference between the two. A few ounces would not make a difference, the huge number of pounds difference will and is the difference between me replacing my current body with a 50D or a 7D.<br>

Any review I've read by trusted sources (dpreview, photozone) point out the slight difference between the two, saying the non-IS is sharper, particularly on an APS-C body. That issue seals it with a £500 backdrop, I had a 70-300 IS and it worked just fine, I don't miss it now i've not got it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How any pro could not recommend IS to nearly anybody but very specific (<strong>always</strong> well supported or well lite) users I don't know. I have lost too many images to camera shake, I know I am not the only one.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not a pro photographer. I always appreciate the extra opinion that a forum that this brings. I also appreciate the experience of lab testing lenses and I also know my own shooting style and what works for me.<br>

I am a pro cameraman however, and in all of the cirumstances I can think of where i've been using a compact video camera and therefore had the option I can't think where IS would have saved an image (getting bottled by rioting soccer fans in manchester or camping at the summit of Goat Fell for sunrise timelapse in winter, both circumstances where I was pushing myself a bit) the reason being I always use a camera support. Always. And if you think camera tripods are heavy, try a video tripod, vinten pro or satchler... Thats my style and so IS is pretty much irrelevant for me. <br>

£500 for a redundant function or a sharper lens?<br>

Sharper lens please.<br>

If I'm shooting in lower light I'll put up with the higher ISO noise or lean against a wall, or pull out the superclamp (which every photographer should have) I've taken a few shots in low light with IS and it's not been apparant until I've got back to the PC that it hasn't worked as well as hoped, a fast shutter or tripod is simply better. For me. Thats my experience.</p>