Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L.....Is IS worth $500 extra

[2beanornot2bean]

i shoot a lot of concert photography and needed a wider aperture to help with

low light situations. i just got the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L lense and am

wondering, since i am already over-extending myself, if it would be worth the

extra $500 to the IS....any thoughts?

[jcolwell]

It's worth every cent for shooting stage performances when the subject is not moving fast; otherwise, it's worth every second cent.

[micheleberti]

yes, it is

[beauh44]

Hi Beana, IMHO the IS is worth every penny, especially for concert photography for one main reason - it's very difficult to use a tripod, if not impossible most times. Yes, it's very heavy. Yes it's expensive. But I've gotten shots I would've missed without it. Here are a few (Victor Wooten & his band) taken either at ISO 1600 or 3200, depending on what I could get away with at the time, all hand-held with a 20D that were all around 1/30th of a second, wide open at f/2.8: http://www.photo.net/photo/5304968 http://www.photo.net/photo/5304974 http://www.photo.net/photo/5304977 http://www.photo.net/photo/5304979 and http://www.photo.net/photo/5304975

 

Unfortunately, you can see the backs of people's heads in the audience in front of me in some of the shots but I was pretty far away and thus zoomed in at or around 200mm most times. Just my .02 cent's - good luck!

[leopoldstotch]

If you're handholding, yes. If you're using a monopod, no.

[m_barbu1]

I'm not sure using a monopod is a realistic option in a concert environment. You can always turn off IS on a lens that has it, but you can never add it to a lens that doesn't have it. IMO, it's worth it.

[whwhitejr]

If you shoot off hand Is is nice on the 70-200mm for low light shoots(well worth the eztra Bucks) Regards, Bill

[mark_petrie]

Unless you plan on using a monopod or tripod most of the time, the 500 is well spent.

[uriah]

absolutely yes

[eliot_webb]

The 70-200 L 2.8 IS is my favorite lens.

I would feel seriously stupid if I would've spent $1200 for the non IS when I could've had the bad dad for alittle more. I shoot everything from concerts to fashion with it- great piece of kit!

[casey mcallister]

No brainer!

 

With IS hand held you can:

 

Shoot 70mm at TV 1/20 @2.8

 

Shoot 135mm at TV 1/40 @2.8

 

Get the IS!

[sravan]

Go spend the 500.

[chris_mills1]

<p>I also bought the 70-200/2.8 sans IS first. I shot with it for a week and a half and

looked at my results. I found that I had a significant number of shots (around 10% or so)

that all had the following characteristics:</p>

<ol>

<li>handheld</li>

<li>aperture-priority mode</li>

<li>limited light</li>

<li>focal length > 120mm</li>

<li>motion blur on a (mostly) stationary subject</li>

</ol>

 

<p>The kicker was that two of the "lost" shots would have been solid

portfolio candidates had they been sharp. That was enough reason

for me to upgrade to the IS lens.</p>

 

<p>I have not regretted the upgrade a single time. IS on this lens is

fantastic.</p>

[savagesax]

Just bought it, wait for the rebates, maybe it won't hurt as bad buying the IS. One of the best lenses I own next to getting into medium format.

[iainwilson]

Yes get the IS, i got this lens about 1 year ago and just can't fault it. The IS is amazing! As everyone has said, if your using a tripod then turn the IS off (saves the battery, plus you won't really need it) if your holding it its got to be ON. Playing with mine, you can really see it work, when your holding it.

On the lens there are two modes for the IS, one for all round IS and one just for left right movement, so your covered for all sorts of shooting!

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>If you're using a monopod, no.</cite>

 

<p>IS works very well on a monopod; IS plus a monopod is better than either one alone. That is, of course, if the <em>subject</em> isn't moving around; since the whole point of IS is to counteract <em>camera</em> motion and allow you to use slower shutter speeds, it is of no benefit if it's the <em>subject</em> that's moving.</p>

[doug_landrum]

Spend the money, get the IS. It's worth every penny and more. The 70-200 hand held with IS is better than using any lens of comparable focal length using a monopod without IS. The 70-200 IS coupled with a monopod is great. You will regret not spending the $500 when you sell the non-IS to get the IS lens.

[darrendrevik]

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes.

If you have a monopod, the answer is still Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes.

 

Have never regretted spending the extra money. That lens is my workhorse, and I can tell the difference when IS is on or off even when just shooting snaps.

[tim_miller7]

One thing that no one is mentioning is the IS will not stop your subject if they are in motion. If you are taking low light pictures of static subjects, the IS is great - but taking an action picture will not be improved by the IS. I borrowed an 70-200 2.8 IS lens and took a bunch of pictures of a gymnastics event, and I couldn't see a difference between the IS and non-IS, unless I was shooting as less than 1/125th. Then there was a large difference.

 

But at 1/200th or greater there wasn't enough of a difference, in my opinion, to warrant the expense.

[tom_thumbnail]

What is the rebate Bob mentioned above? I plan on buying this lens.