70-200/2.8L....To "IS" or not to "IS", that is the question.

[scott_g2]

I am trying to decide if it is worth it to "upgrade" to the IS

version of the 70-200 lens. I use my current 70-200 lens for general

photography, travel, nature, and etc, on and off a tripod. I also

use a 1.4x converter from time to time.

 

I much prefer to shoot in available light when possible. I use slow

speed chrome film for 85% of my shooting. Faster slide films and

some print stuff will sneak into my bag now and then.

 

I am very new to Canon and I am still learning about the system and

how to get the most out of it. (Never ending process)

 

In your opinion(s), is the additional cost of "IS" justified at this

focal length?

[isaac sibson]

Well, you can answer this question yourself, because no one else can answer it for you.

 

Look at the shots you take with your 70-200, and look at how many are lost due to camera-shake, or could have done with that bit more DOF. Next think about how many times there's a shot you want to take but then think "no, It's too dark, it won't come out". Now work out how many of those are in the range IS can compensate for, and then decide whether those shots are worth the cost to you. If they're not, then it's not worth it. If they are, then it is.

 

Personally, I don't often (but occasionally do) feel the need for IS on my 70-200 F4L. On my 300 F4L IS however, I wouldn't do without it.

[jackflesher]

>In your opinion(s), is the additional cost of "IS" justified at this focal length?< <p>

 

Let me just say this about that... One of the main reasons I switched to Canon from Nikon was for the breadth of IS lenses. Best decision I ever made. IS rocks, and the 70-200 IS is one of the best lenses I have ever used. Period.

[alex_hsi]

IS is GREAT! I've used my friend's IS and I absolutely love it! BUT, I still went and get a none IS for myself. Why? 1. most of the time I use a tripod for my work. 2. If I need to handheld the lens it will be bright! 3. IS can't really compensate for REALLY bad situation. 4. none IS is at least $500 under IS with slight better optics. So, here you go, you have to make the decision. If you have the cash to burn and mostly you want to take fast snap shots without a tripod in medium lights, get the IS, it's fabulous and you will quickly forget the hold you burned in your pocket, else, get the none IS, trust me, you will love is as much...

[jay_.]

If not for IS I would not have ever switched to Canon. Even on a tripod,IMO IS is a better innovation than TTL metering. I use the 300/2.8IS with sometimes two 2x teleconverters and get sharp images (optical issues aside). It is an amazing invention. I also have the 70-200/IS after a short trial of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and a non-IS Canon, and after 3 generations of 80-200/2.8 Nikkors. No comparison, the 70-200IS is the best lens of its kind...on a par optically with the 70-180/2.8APO Leica R lens but capable of sharper images due to the IS.

[yakim_peled1]

YES !!!

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I upgraded from the 28-105 to the 28-135, mostly to get IS. Even at those relatively short focal lengths, I find IS useful. I would definitely find IS useful on a 70-200.</p>

 

<p>That's just me, though. If you like to shoot handheld and prefer to use slower films, then you will probably find IS very useful. If you prefer to use a tripod, IS probably won't do much for you (it can help tame mirror slap, but that's usually not a problem unless you're shooting at something like 1/15s or thereabouts; it can also settle the image down on a windy day). If you want to use high shutter speeds to freeze action, IS won't do much for you. If your subjects are stationary, or if you're panning to get sharp subjects against a motion-blurred background, IS could be just what the doctor ordered.</p>

[simon_hodgson]

I tested both of the above len's and couldn't really see any difference in sharpness or quality. They both produced excellent results, but when it came down to it, I couldn't justify spending the extra $$$. I've hand held the non IS at 1/200sec f5.6, at some recent motor racing in Australia, and the results were excellent. I'm yet to get any camera shake with this lens and this is also with a 2x attached to it! I am so happy with the results but if I had the extra cash I would still lean towards the IS. I have to say most of the time when I'm shooting sport I do use a mono pod though.

I've also found that with the f2.8 you are often shooting 4000 or even 1/8000 so camera shake is not even an issue.

 

I think what ever way you go, you will be extremely happy with your results they are an excellent lens.