70-200mm 2.8 IS or non-IS

[tom_p4]

<p>Hey everyone, I was looking at getting one of Canon's L series lenses, and after a bunch of research, decided to go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 and sell my 75-300 f/4-5.6. Its not a cheap investment, but I see myself having this lens for a long time, so now the question is to IS or not to IS. I would love to have the IS version, but the price tag jumps up quite a bit compared to the non-IS. I'm currently looking over at ebay but really don't want to spend over a grand on this lens-more like somewhere around $800-900 range. What do you think, just go ahead and get the non-IS one, or continue to stake out ebay all summer hoping for a good deal on the IS version?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's a decision only you can make in the end; but even though I have a steady hand for the most part, I would still want to buy any lens that <em>could</em> come with IS <em>with</em> the feature. Things I photograph don't move around a lot very fast, so I'd rather have an f/4 with IS than a f/2.8 without, if that were my only choice.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">Have you searched? It was asked many times. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Short answer: If you only shoot sports at 1/250 and above get the non-IS. If not, get the IS. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p dir="rtl"> </p>

[lensmith]

<p>I had looked at the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and opted for the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II. A link to the review is below, plus it's only $800. Yes, it doesn't have the cache of the "L" lens and the optics on the "L" lens are clearly better, but unless you are making your living off your equipment, it may not be worth the additional $800.</p>

<p>Below is a link to some photos I took with the lens, it was taken on a very cold December day in Connecticut (28 degrees) and the lens had no problems. We were pretty far up in the bleachers and I was using a monopod with the ring loose so I could change camera positions easily.</p>

<p>I guess the question is: What could you do with the extra $800? </p>

<p>Sigma Review: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/</a><br>

Sample Photos: <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/leonard.b.smith/2008ClassLLFootballChampionships">http://picasaweb.google.com/leonard.b.smith/2008ClassLLFootballChampionships</a></p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"What do you think, Just go ahead and get the non-IS one?"</strong></em><br>

<br>

Get the NON IS one:</p>

<p > <br />. If the lens will ONLY be used for sports photography AND<br />. that sport never requires panning capture AND<br />. that sport (when in low light) requires a shutter speed (around) 1/320s or faster to freeze motion<br>

<br>

Get the IS one:</p>

<p >If <strong><em>all three</em></strong> above do not apply.<br>

<br>

I also think very few people buy a 70 to 200F2.8, only to use it for sport.<br>

<br>

FYI: <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TK8f">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TK8f</a> <br>

<br>

that thread is just a few posts down and at the time is is also a sticky post at the top of this forum . . . and as mentioned by Yakim, there are a zillion others also. Many have other options you might not yet have considered, as does the link above.<br>

<br>

Also these L series lenses seem to hold their value, so you might be holding your breathe for a while "<em>hoping for a good deal</em>" on the 70 to 200F2.8L IS - I guess it might be the biggest selling L zoom . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Whichever version you buy I certainly would not buy it on Ebay. Ebay is fine for low end backup gear. But I won't buy anything for photography over $500 on Ebay. It's just too risky. You could end up with a bad copy of the lens and no recourse. Also, This particular lens sells for more on Ebay than it does at reputable dealers like B&H.</p>

<p>If at all possible get the IS version or consider the F4 IS one. I had the non IS one first then traded it in for the 2.8 IS. It's worth the extra money. Especially when you consider that you might be shooting with it for 20 years. Divide the extra money by that.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>Get the IS... I agree with Bob O'Sullivan. I spent the extra money and it was worth every cent. I hope to be using that lens for a long time - and the way it's built, I expect it to last. You might also want to check one of the reputable dealers (i.e. B&H, Adorama, etc.) to see if they have Canon refurbs demos. That will knock a few hundred off. I bought a refurb from Adorama; it came with everything that was in the non-refub boxes and was sealed from Canon. No problems.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Depends what you want to shoot. You are probably best to buy new as these lenses hold their value and ebaty is not a great source for this quality of lens. Think about what you shoot - do you need IS ? do you need f2.8? Canon makes 4 good quality 70-200 lenses each increasing larger and more expensive. It really depends on the camera body and what you want to do. I am quite happy with the F2.8 non-IS but it mainly shoots sports or in good light on a 5DII or film 1 series body. If you plan to shoot at about LV9 or below handheld on a regular basis get the IS one.</p>

[zafar1]

<p>You did not post what you shoot. If it is for everyday all-around shooting, most people will recommend 70-200 f/4 IS.</p>

<p>If you do studio shoots or sports shoots, then you don't need IS.</p>

<p>Otherwise IS is much better. Again, if cost is an issue that f/4 version may be a better choice.</p>

[www.photo.netphotoslan]

<p>Save your nickles and buy a new or refurbished lens WITH IS from a reliable dealer. Mine is a fantastic lens used for sports (usually with IS turned off), but also used for low light photography where IS is a God-send. Although it is big and heavy, the image quality is fantastic. It is my favorite lens. Good luck!</p>