Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L (Non IS)

[Abel]

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L (Non IS)

When posting photos, please give any and all information in regards to the photo that you can. This extra information will give more information about how the photo was taken and with what camera body.

Example:

Canon 20d : @16mm : 1/200th : f3.5 : 1600 ISO : AV Mode : -1/3 Exp Comp



Thanks

[swanny338]

Canon 5D : ISO 100: 1/160 : f/11 : @108mm

[littleman23408]

F4, 1/1250, ISO 200

[Beezwax]

Originally Posted by littleman23408

F4, 1/1250, ISO 200

great action photo Justin but it seems that the WB is off and a bit hot on the exposure

[littleman23408]

Originally Posted by Beezwax

great action photo Justin but it seems that the WB is off and a bit hot on the exposure

Thanks Ben,

What would you suggest on the white balance? I had it on sunny...

I will bump up the shutter next time around.

Also, for some reason the original file looks more clear and sharp, than what got posted. I am guessing that was due to the upload on the image site.

[booja]

canon 30d : iso 100: 115mm : 2.8 : 1/1600

[Magus]

Canon 20D: 70-200mm (non IS) 1/800: ISO 200: AV: f2.8
I love the 70-200 and use it almost exclusively until I got my 17-40 but that is another story. This horse was running through a pasture I was near and was lucky to get the camera out of the bag before he took off out of sight. He was about 250' passing in front of my line of sight. Based on his color and that it had rained recently so the grass was as green as it could get, I had to do little or no post processing.

[ukneeq]

So I'm thinking of getting this lens but wondered how it compares to IS version. I'm leaning toward this one because of the price difference between the two. I wanted to know what other people's opinions were though. If the IS version is worth it I might save up another couple months and get that one.

[Magus]

Since I take a lot of photos of horses, I tend to shoot wide open and fast. I know people who have the IS lens and love it but for what I am looking for and the results I get, I see no advantge to the IS. If you look at my website, Scott Gipson almost everything there is with the 70-200 non IS. Scott

[Magus]

Here is an example of the non IS. I took this at the Cheyenne Frontier Days Rodeo last week at 1/400, ISO 400, 105MM. This is a terrific lens. Scott

[ukneeq]

Thanks Scott. Great pictures!

[Dobick]

with the IS, you can usually get down to around 1/60 very comfortably, where as the best I have been able to do with the non-IS (which I own) is 1/125 to 1/160. Those also required a bit of bracing on a knee... (talking about the long end at 200mm)

Both lenses (all three now) tend to be very sharp at all apertures and at all focal lengths.

for the money and for my money, I went with the non-IS

[ukneeq]

Originally Posted by Dobick

with the IS, you can usually get down to around 1/60 very comfortably, where as the best I have been able to do with the non-IS (which I own) is 1/125 to 1/160. Those also required a bit of bracing on a knee... (talking about the long end at 200mm)

Both lenses (all three now) tend to be very sharp at all apertures and at all focal lengths.

for the money and for my money, I went with the non-IS

Yea I'm thinking that is the route I'm going to take too. I think I would be fine with having to keep the faster shutter speed.

[David Price]

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L (Non IS)

20D: @200mm: 1/90th: f9.5: ISO 400: AV Mode: +/- 0 Exp Comp.

[kenw]

50d, 70-200/2.8 Non IS @ 1/400s, f2.8, iso 200, handheld