which 70-200 lens

[KenPapai]

<p><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>Obvious, yes. Nothing to argue there. Also, in lieu of IS, for decades:</p>

<p>1. Use a tripod<br>

2. Use MLU<br>

3. Use a cable release<br>

4. Bump ISO to 800 or more (modern DSLRs kick ass at high ISOs)<br>

5. Drag your shutter with a flash</p>

<p>Not saying I.S. isn't nice.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>How any body would not recommend IS... people have budgets, I would love to have a Lexus IS F, but it is out of my budget. So what is the best lens that one can afford is how the thread started.</p>

[stp]

<p>If I had unlimited funds and wanted to purchase a Canon 70-200mm zoom, I'd choose the f/4, and I'd probably get the IS version for those very, very limited occasions when I don't use a tripod. If I needed to pinch pennies, I'd get the non-IS version. I have the f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, and I haven't used the f/2.8 for a couple of years.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. You fall into the very small minority who would not benefit from IS, being as how you fall into my "always well supported category". In that case finance alone gives you 500 reasons to choose the non IS over the IS :-)</p>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback too. I use all the techniques you list, and live view with 10x zoom for manual focus. However I deliberately posted an image that none of these techniques would have worked on. I am off to photograph my sister in a concert tonight, similar circumstances to John's image, no support allowed, IS will enable me to get images. I find high ISO to still be a letdown when printed, it is fine if you have a comparatively bright subject and are just dialing in high ISO to bump up the shutter speed, but when you get down to lower EV's I still don't like the prints I get from high ISO. Certainly when I play off 800ISO prints against 200ISO prints that used IS to regain the two stops I am happier with the latter.</p>

<p>Manuel,</p>

<p>Thanks for the comment, but I did say financial reasons were a good reason to not get IS. I have a budget too :-) I answered the original thread thus,<em> "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."</em> I think that covered your concerns and the OP's question.</p>

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

 

[William Michael]

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

<p>Lots of good lenses, but it is a bit difficult to suggest one without some details of what you intend to do with the lens . . . but then again I don’t think any one has asked you, ? ? ?</p>

<p>So I will –</p>

<p>WHY do you want a 70 to 200F/2.8IS?<br>

WHAT do you intend to shoot with it? <br />WHAT camera are you using?<br>

DO you think you will use that camera for the next two years or so?</p>

<p>Please respond, thanks.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Hi Scott, are you still bashing that IS drum? Crikey it’s loud!</p>

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

<p>That’s a great line, but I liked this one better:</p>

<p><em>“How any pro could not recommend IS to nearly anybody but very specific users I don't know.”</em></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>For full discloser I understood all of Scott’s comments, and I agree that it is indeed a rare circumstance that IS will not eventually be of benefit to mostly all Photographers, if they extend themselves and at every available opportunity – especially those Photographers who do not have the funds to specifically designate a particular lens to do a particular job.</p>

<p>Also, I am one who thrives on pushing limits – and I can pull (what I consider) some good shots with the EF70 to 200F/2.8L + x2.0 and Hand Held, which is perhaps pushing oneself hard, by Scott’s definition (e.g. : <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717</a> ).</p>

<p>But just because I can do that, it does not mean that I could not do more, in some situations, with the IS version of that lens.</p>

<p>My EF70 to 200F/2.8L was purchased basically for a specific job and I bought it just for that singular purpose and I am very happy with the lens – I do not “need” a 70 to 200F/2.8LIS – but I can borrow one. :)</p>

<p>When I covered the State Snowboarding Championships, I used the borrowed 70 to 200F2.8L IS – because I wanted to use IS panning mode 2 – especially for shots at dawn of the Practice Runs . . . and it’s bloody difficult to set a tripod with a fluid damped panning head, on snow – and to stay light weight and mobile.</p>

<p>One has to be very sure that IS will never be of any use whatsoever, before one decides to buy a non IS lens.</p>

<p>Although as a generalization, I agree that for most folk the F/4 with IS would be the better choice for "all round Photography” . . . the 70 to 200 set of four lenses are a special case IMO:</p>

<p><strong><em>because of the very fine nuance in the detail of comparing and contrasting 1 stop of aperture to the expected use of IS . . . the choice between the EF70 to 200F/4L IS USM and the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM is so much dependent upon the intended application of the lens and the camera(s) the lens is to be used on. </em></strong></p>

<p>This is more so than for the comparison of any other pair of lenses which is "similar".</p>

<p>Thus, it would really benefit us all, if we knew the intended uses for this lens which is to be purchased.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hi William,</p>

<p>Sorry yes still banging the drum. I don't so often now but knocking IS is getting more common so I thought I'd wade in. You know how I like to poke the hornets nest!</p>

<p>I was only looking at your 2x folder the other day, that swimmers head is particularly impressive, I had every intention of linking to it on the next 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2x TC vs 100-400 thread :-)</p>

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

[pjmeade]

<p>If you simply must have a 70-200, go for the 70-200/4 non IS. Light, sharp, unobtrusive and a lot less expensive tha the 2.8 IS.</p>

<p>My 2p</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I had the 70-200f4 IS for about 18 months it is a fantastic lens. I then swaped to the 2.8 IS beacuse I needed a faster lens and it's great for blowing out the background. People say the f/4 is is the sharpest, this is true but beacuse wide open it,s only f/4. The 2.8 IS at f/4 is on par with the f/4 is. My 2.8 IS at 2.8 is nearly as sharp as my macro lens at all focal lengths but at 200mm it drops off slightly.<br>

Bulid quality of both is the best I've ever seen, you'll can be confident they will both perform as well on FF, unlike the edge performance of the Nikon.<br>

I have a 24-70 2.8 L and at that focal length I don't need IS, I wouldn't say no to it but it does'nt exist and if it did it would be £500 more,judging by the difference IS makes on the 70-200 lens, and I wouldn't pay for it on a 24 70 lens. I would pay it on a 70-200, and it is invaluable if you use TC's.<br>

You need to know what you want the lens for, the f/4 IS is great for your own photos as a hobby, you can afford to miss a shot, the non 2.8 is the one to get if your going to shoot sports where IS is useless beacause you,ll need fast shutter speed.<br>

But if you want to cover everything the only way to go is the 2.8 IS<br>

I wouldn,t get third party lenses the difference between the sigma 70 200 and the canon 70 200 2.8 non IS is about £200, get the canon you can realy see where you're money is going when you pick it up</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>People say the f/4 is is the sharpest, this is true but beacuse wide open it,s only f/4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good hypothesis, but judging by the target shots at The-Digital-Picture, the f4.0 is consistantly sharper than the f2.8, at any comparable focal length. They are both sharp enough to hurt yourself, for that matter ;)</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>you're right, if your shooting test charts, but in the real world the difference is so small it doesn't matter. As with any fast lenses including primes, they all perform worse wide open. A lot of photographers including my self buy fast lenses, and only using it wide open when necessary, so if you shoot at 5.6 you'll get better results from a fast 2.8 lens then a lens that starts at 5.6. Now this it what makes the 70-200 f/4 IS amazing it doesn't loose any thing wide open.<br>

The only problem with people who don't understand lenses is that they grab a 2.8 IS, and a f/4 IS and test them both wide open and wonder why there is a difference.<br>

I loved the f/4 IS, I was reluctent to give it up, but when your in a church and you need to shoot at an 80th at least to capture people, at 200mm IS makes all the difference, and with an f/4 I would be restricted to a 40th, it would be unusable.I wouldn't buy a 2.8 IS just for bokeh, at 200mm f/4 is quite good.<br>

I took my 2.8 IS to a shop to test a new body, the salesman had a 2.8 non IS, he bought it beacuse of all the talk about the non IS being sharper. He was shocked how my 2.8IS was equal to his non IS, may be I have a very good copy.<br>

A f/2.8 lens can do what a f/4 can, but a f/4 can't do what a f/2.8 can. If you're trying to decide between the two and you don't know how valuable it is to shoot at an 80th instead of a 40th, then you don't need the 2.8 otherwise you would just buy it knowing that anything else won't do.<br>

If you're planning to go pro save you're money and get the 2.8 IS, <strong>don't get the f/4!</strong> If you're doing it for fun get the f/4 <strong>non IS</strong>, you'll have time to set up a tripod and if you miss the shot, no big deal. You'll know when you need something at 2.8 or with IS or with both. You won't loose a lot of money on any of the 70-200 canon lenses if you sell it.</p>

[shane_o]

<p>thanks this really has helped me.<br>

I am planning to go pro and I plan to do weddings in the future.....<br>

I shot my frist wedding this past summer for friends and it was a small wedding and I loved it.<br>

So all the talk and the reviews even though I would love to save some money it seems like the canon 2.8 IS is the only way to go considering my future needs. I don't want to invest in something and then a year down the road say why did i not just spend the extra few hundred or whatever....</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"that swimmers head is particularly impressive, I had every intention of linking to it on the next 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2x TC vs 100-400 thread" </em></strong><br /><br />Full disclosure, and for Scott especially, if you are still reading . . . I just went back to interrogate my files, because it is important to note the whole gig and everything which was shot on the day, as it is easy to only show the odd one good shot and claim success and not to ask about the whole roll of proofs . . <br /><br />Those two samples in my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">70 to 200F/2.8L + 2.0MkII Pushing Limits - Hand Held - (And also stuff for the pixel peepers)</a> folder, were from this set: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=942325">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=942325</a> which was my second attempt at the Reportage Assignment from this thread: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a> .<br /><br />I went to that Swimming training camp specifically to create "a story" in nine shots.<br /><br />On that afternoon I pulled 109 frames, of which 39 were using the 70 to 200 + 2.0MkII. (Yes I am miserly when shooting, even with digital)<br /><br />Of those 39, 4 were me getting bored and shooting birds flying over head, so there were 35 . . . of the 35 there were 6 where I failed to get good focus - I back-focused (on the lane ropes not the swimmer's head. The DoF is about 6 inches) . . . <br /><br />That left 29 from 35 attempts which I assessed as "technical keepers", which were then available for artistic selection.<br /><br />IMO, 29 from 35 in the “Technically OK” bin is enough to recommend the very small investment of buying the x2.0MkII and the extra effort to carry it around all the time, much like I carry a set of Kenko extension rings all the time . . . <br /><br />The x1.4MkII is much more useful, and easier to use on the 70 to 200 F/2.8L, in my experience. <br /><br />WW</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Yep still here William,</p>

<p>All interesting stuff, I will take my 70-200 and 2X out next time I am covering surfing, I normally use the 300 for that so I'll have a good comparison. Just waiting for the next 100-400 thread, I might well jump in and rustle a few feathers :-)</p>

<p>Digesting the linked threads, and the discipline in story telling.</p>

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

[William Michael]

<p>Neil Ambrose is a gentleman of the highest order and vey helpful, a true professional I have learnt a lot.<br>

And for something different . . . Take a look at this thread - <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VF78">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VF78</a><br>

A very Merry Christmas Scott, All the best for 2010 <br>

You Take care too,<br>

Regards,<br>

Bill</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>