tim_kong Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I know this is somewaht of a vintage question but I wanted some confirmation on this before I make the purchase.I was offered a 70-200mm/2.8L zoom in mint condition. I was just wondering how was it compared to the IS version in sharpness. Is IS made a world of a difference between this two models since it is already a pretty fast lens at f2.8. Please advise me if I should get this lens or go for the IS version. I am currently using 70-200/4, which is tack sharp but would like a faster lens for indoor shooting. Thanks for all advise/comments. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mehrashk Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Remember that you can't always shoot at 2.8, sometimes you need more DOF. so IS is very useful in low light and shutter speeds less than 1/15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 <p> From the summary in <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml</a>: </p> <p> The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility. It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth the extra money, I don't know what is.</p> <p> Personally, I agree with every word. In fact, I think about getting one for myself. </p> <p> Happy shooting, <br> Yakim. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_goeden Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Well also Yakim, not to be contreversial (sp?) but not every has an extra $750. I mean yes you are very correct in the fact that if you have the extra $$$ then by all means get it, that's a no brainer, but maybe the guy doesn't have the extra money. Like me, I would have to scrape for a year or so for $750 let alone, an extra 750 on top of the $1100 or whatever is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolwell Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 The 70-200mm/2.8L will be sharper on a tripod. The 70-200mm/2.8L IS will be sharper handheld. Which will you do most often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 "I mean yes you are very correct in the fact that if you have the extra $$$ then by all means get it, that's a no brainer, but maybe the guy doesn't have the extra money." If Tim doesn't have the money for the IS version, why would he ask the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcox2 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 IS. Next question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrcphoto Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 hey..there's another me ... *grin* Tim, for indoor, you'd probably get more versatility out of the IS version, especially if you are not on a tripod or monopod. However, again, it depends on what you are shooting on whether or not the IS version will assist (IS only stops your motion, not everything elses). From what I've heard the non-IS version is a tad bit sharper but both are excellent performers. Another question to maybe ask instead of tossing the extra 750 onto the IS version, is there something else that would augment your kit that might make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 <i>If Tim doesn't have the money for the IS version, why would he ask the question?</i> <p> It's not a question of having the money or not having it, which should be fairly obvious. The question is whether it's worth it or not. <p> That said, it's the most pointless sort of question. How is anyone here supposed to tell you how to spend your money? That's your wife's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whwhitejr Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 James said it in a nut shell. If you can't stand the tripod get the IS. LOL,Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildpicture Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Remember, IS helps lowering the effect of you yourself "shaking the lens up and down". IS does absolutely nothing to freeze a moving subject at 1/30 or so. So IS can only be helpfull if your subject is still or hardly moving. I do use IS a lot on my 500/4 and 100-400 lenses. For the 70-200 I didn�t get it, because I don�t shoot subjects that "freeze" for 1/30th of a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I have the IS version and it's one of my most used lenses, if I was down to my last two or three canon lenses that would surely be one. However, I was looking through the Canon EF III Lensbook (the definitive guide to Canon optics) and discovered that when used with a multiplier the non IS version apparently enjoys a small but noticeable advantage over the IS version. It wouldn't change my choice but it may be relevant for some photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Hans is right. So it depends if you are trying to stop moving subjects indoors or not. If it's indoor sports/theatre then no IS, if it's indoor portrait/party candids then IS. In terms of resolutino your 70-200/4 L is the sharpest of all three, with the f2.8 next, and the f2.8 IS last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_kong Posted June 17, 2006 Author Share Posted June 17, 2006 Thank you guys for all your valuable comments. Point noted on the versatility of the IS version. I will be using the lens to shoot mostly indoor candids(weddings & birthdays) and my kid's stage performances, no sports though. I have a fairly low rate of good & sharp shots with my existing f4 version so I was thinking if a faster lens would provide me with better percentage of good shots. Tripod would be out of the question in these situations so I guess the IS version would be a better bet for me, right! Anyway, much appreciation for all your time to help me out. Thanks. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontus_lindqvist2 Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 IS. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan mcgill - trm photo st Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Go against the grain and buy a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG. It is $800.00 and has EXCELLENT optics. It does not have IS. 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