scott_ferris Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 <p>No Manuel that is not what I meant, it makes lots of sense to not buy the non IS version but anybody that thinks the main reason to do so is because the IS version is not sharp is wrong. I shoot stage events, I use a 300 f2.8 hand held for three days (no tripod or monopod restrictions), I am not a weightlifter or anything like it. I use the tools that do the job, nowadays I would not be without IS.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 <p>Manuel, on test targets it might, in the real world the IS lens gives nothing away in sharpness and in practical use IQ is indistinguishable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kel_madics Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 <p>nice how this thread evolved into somehow a different top</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 <p>I have had my 70-200 L for about 5 years now, it was the second lens I bought after the 24-70L, I do not recall an IS lens available at the time, it is not prudent to discard some thing that works well when a simple thing like a monopod allows me to go down to 1/15 shutter speed for events where people are not moving. Today I would probably buy the IS version, but for some one that can not afford the extra $400 dollars the non-is works very well. In fact I used the lens this past weekend at shutter speeds between 60-100 all day with a 50D to keep the ISO down. The images can be viewed at youtube <a href=" When I was thinking of monopod it has been on days when I am waiting for a bird to or other animal to do something, too often they do it when I let the lens down for a moment to rest. I do take the monopod when I want low shutter speeds to capture movement for stage events.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 <p>Don't know what happened but one is enough bull from me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 <p>Kel, that is the fun of discussions, don't you think?</p> <p>Manuel, I am not disagreeing with you, my point was that the 70-200 f2.8IS is a very sharp lens. Anybody that refuses to buy it because it is not sharp (because it appears less sharp in tests) is wrong. I never said everybody should buy it and that everybody that didn't was silly, and there are many reasons to not buy it, weight, size, cost, need etc etc . For goodness sake chill. I made one point and you misinterpreted it, I tried to correct your misunderstanding of my comment but you still think I am having a go at you, I am not.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_poe1 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 <p>As I was saying (part of my rant may have already posted accidentally), the 70-200mm as far as I'm concerned is just a hunk of junk, and those of you who think the lens is great should count yourselves as very lucky ro receicing a sharp copy, or maybe you need to see an eye doctor (kidding). I've used this lens for 4 years, bought it new, sent it to canon twice, used it on a 20D, 30D, 1D2N, 5D, 1Ds2 and now a spanking new 7D. I have a few other lenses in my bag and this one is by far the least sharp and most frustrating of the bunch. At 70mm it focuses in front of or behind the subject but rarely on it, at 100 and 135 mm it seems to be okay, and at 200mm it is great as long as your subject is within 100 feet or so. Any farther and it starts to have focus issues. And distance stuff over 100 yards... forget it... it just isn't sharp no matter what you do. Center point focusing, locked down on a tripod with mirror lock up, stabilizer off, broad daylight, 100 ISO, cable shutter release... I mean everything... and the pictures just look like crap. The focus is slightly off with every camera, and when manually focusses they still just really lacks anything resembling critical sharpness. In fact 2 years ago (the first time I sent it to canon) I picked up a 135mm 2.0. That lens taught me what a sharp image is supposed to look like. The 135 with a 1.4 extender almost always looks better than the 70-200mm. I'm so frustrated. I really want to like this lens, but it stinks and if I send it to Canon they're going to tell me "gosh, its within tollerence... looks great." So as far as I'm concerned its a pretty good 90 to 150, anything else is a crap-shoot, and there is no way to make anything shot at 200 mm look good unless its for the web or small, or stopped down to f/11, and that's not why I bought the freakn lens. Good luck everyone. Send me your 200mm 2.8 so I know what a sharp image at that focal length is supposed to look like.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 <p>Terry,</p> <p>That is a shame, but<strong> your</strong> 70-200 is a hunk of junk, not <strong>the</strong> 70-200 in general. Sell it, don't live with a lemon.</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