Lens Question: 70-200 2.8-IS or no?

[Elese]

As of right now, I have a budget of $850 for a new lens. I really want the 70-200 2.8 IS lens-but $850 isn't gonna cut it. Do you think the extra $ for the IS is worth it or is this a lens that really doesn't need it? Should I get a Sigma or Tamron lens instead? Or should I just wait a while until I have enough saved for the IS? What's your opinion?
Thanks!!

[kenw]

Totally depends on what you will shoot with it.

[Elese]

Use a 7d & would probably use it most with children, families, & nature.

[duronboy]

Do you get paid at all? If so, you definitely want IS. That IS has saved me a few times when a family doesn't show up for the shoot on time, and it's so dark at I'm at 1/30th, ISO 3200, f/2.8. Any focal length the 70-200s offer could definitely take advantage of the IS, but especially portrait lengths. Definitely worth the money. I'd get the 70-200 f4 IS, if the money is an issue. It's actually sharper and has better contrast at f/4 than the f2.8 IS at f/4(or any aperture). And, if you're shooting families, you should be at f/4, anyway.

[gardener]

I have a several years old 70-200 2.8 IS and while I don't use it often, every time I drag it out and DO use it, I wonder why I don't use it more often.
I'd suggest that you go somewhere where you can actually hold both versions of the lens attached to your camera (or a camera). I love IS and would probably pay extra for it on every lens I own but since every lens isn't available with IS, one does what one can with what one has...
On the other hand, many don't feel IS is worth the extra money or increased weight... You'll need to make your own decision keeping the adage in mind that great lenses tend to last nigh on forever and have good resale value, not to mention that they're a pleasure to use. Ok lenses tend to be just... ok although that doesn't mean that cheaper lenses don't also take a lot of very nice images.
If push comes to shove, the 2.8f will probably benefit you far more than the IS does if money is the object. Either way, the 70-200 2.8 Canon is a heck of a versatile lens.

[iCe]

Either way, the 70-200 2.8 Canon is a heck of a versatile lens.

Probably the most versatile lens Canon makes... and with IS... it gets better. My first version was bought with an EOS 1 camera. They had both just hit the market. it was a great lens...

[saifmaster]

I have the sigma 70-200 non OS that I use on my Nikon D7000 and I love it. Get the sigma 70-200, you can always sell it later on when you have saved up enough to upgrade.

Check out this website where you can see pictures taken with different lens.
Full-size sample photos from Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8

[Nikonfan]

I have the Sigma with OS (IS in Canon speak) and it's amazing. In fact, there is another thread about it here. The IS is gives the equivalent of 4 stops. It's similar to Nikons VRII system. This lense will run you about $1,200 but it's well worth it!! Here is the other thread:

Lense for Nikon

My first post on that thread has a link to the Sigma on Amazon

[Photogdude]

a great substitute for IS would be a tripod. just a thought. It really depends on what you are shooting.

[kenw]

well, good input so far. But $850 isn't going to get you a 70-200 non IS, much less an IS version. Let's say you decide you really want to go with the 70-200/2.8. At the moment, the non-IS version is $1200 (on sale at B+H). To get the IS, you'll need to scratch up over $2000.

Personally, I did not got with IS simply because most of my subjects are moving. IS doesn't do anything for moving subjects, you still have to freeze the motion with the shutter speed. For the other times, I have a tripod and remote. Plus reality was that the extra $800 for IS simply wasn't in the budget. Do I regret not having IS? Not in the least. Are there times I would use it? Sure, but not that many and if I decide sometime in the future to get it, my non-IS version will have held its value just as well for a trade.

I think you would be happy wither either, but if the extra $$ is going to hold you back, I don't think the non-IS will be of any disappointment to you. It surely isn't to me.

[duronboy]

Originally Posted by Photogdude

a great substitute for IS would be a tripod. just a thought. It really depends on what you are shooting.

Tripods are KILLER! Here's the thing, a decent tripod that can effectively support the weight of a 70-200 anything is going to cost more than the difference between the IS version of the 70-200 and the non-IS f/4 or f/2.8.

[Nikonfan]

Originally Posted by kenw

well, good input so far. But $850 isn't going to get you a 70-200 non IS, much less an IS version. Let's say you decide you really want to go with the 70-200/2.8. At the moment, the non-IS version is $1200 (on sale at B+H). To get the IS, you'll need to scratch up over $2000.

Personally, I did not got with IS simply because most of my subjects are moving. IS doesn't do anything for moving subjects, you still have to freeze the motion with the shutter speed. For the other times, I have a tripod and remote. Plus reality was that the extra $800 for IS simply wasn't in the budget. Do I regret not having IS? Not in the least. Are there times I would use it? Sure, but not that many and if I decide sometime in the future to get it, my non-IS version will have held its value just as well for a trade.

I think you would be happy wither either, but if the extra $$ is going to hold you back, I don't think the non-IS will be of any disappointment to you. It surely isn't to me.

I just wanted to add that the Sigma with OS has two settings. One is designed for when there is horizontal movement. So it is still effective on moving objects.

$1,200 won't get you OS/IS with Canon or Nikon brand, but it will get you that with Sigma. Not sure how the Sigma stacks up against the Canon, but when compared to the Nikon VRII it is almost identicle.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by Nikonfan

I just wanted to add that the Sigma with OS has two settings. One is designed for when there is horizontal movement. So it is still effective on moving objects.

Not sure I understand this.

My Canon 100 - 400 L lens with IS has two settings. One is to minimize all motion, horizontal and vertical, of the camera. The other is to allow horizontal motion and not try to correct it, while correcting vertical movement of the camera.

The second setting is for when you want to pan with a moving subject (race car, kid on skateboard) moving horizontally. It will not try to correct your panning motion, only your vertical motion. Is that what you are talking about?

I think Ken was talking about the lens itself will not correct for motion of the subject (kid on the skateboard). I don't think any IS, VR or OS can do that. The ones with two settings will just allow you to pan and create nice effects (blurred streak in background) for some types of motion (horizontal).

Edit: Hmmmm. And maybe in the portrait orientation, they will allow vertical movement and correct horizontal? I don't know since I'm not sure how they really work. I'll have to check that out.

[Patti Edens]

Oops. Sorry, I meant to address the OP's original question. I have IS on three lenses and love it. I don't have the most steady hands (too much coffee), so it helps me a lot when I need to use slower shutter speeds. I can shoot my 100 - 400 at 400mm and 1/100 and do fairly well. 1/200 is easy to handhold and get sharp images. I know I should just use a tripod, but I get tired of lugging it around.

[Nikonfan]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Not sure I understand this.

My Canon 100 - 400 L lens with IS has two settings. One is to minimize all motion, horizontal and vertical, of the camera. The other is to allow horizontal motion and not try to correct it, while correcting vertical movement of the camera.

The second setting is for when you want to pan with a moving subject (race car, kid on skateboard) moving horizontally. It will not try to correct your panning motion, only your vertical motion. Is that what you are talking about?

I think Ken was talking about the lens itself will not correct for motion of the subject (kid on the skateboard). I don't think any IS, VR or OS can do that. The ones with two settings will just allow you to pan and create nice effects (blurred streak in background) for some types of motion (horizontal).

Edit: Hmmmm. And maybe in the portrait orientation, they will allow vertical movement and correct horizontal? I don't know since I'm not sure how they really work. I'll have to check that out.

Yes, i'm talking about panning with moving subjects. Race Car, kid on skateboard. Sounds like you understand it perfectly. I was just pointing out that the OS/IS/VR does still serve a purpose with these types of shots if you use the correct setting. As you pointed out it still works on verticle movement when panning and set correctly.