Lens Buying Decision

[Thorpeland]

Well my credit card is burning a hole in my wallet but its making me ask some questions first.

I need a new telephoto lens and my research has narrowed it down to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L. The question now is IS or Non-IS. Is there anyone who HAS used both?

I currently own the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS, so I do know how great IS can be. But I feel it really shines because of the f4 lens, easily giving me those 2 extra stops in low light. But is it as needed on a f2.8? Or, enough to justify the extra $600? I will be shooting some portraits and sports... night time soccer games under stadium lights and maybe some roller derby ( that should be interesting). If im going to spend the money on the f2.8 tele, I want it to be the right one.

Any thoughts on these lenses would be great. Thanks!

[Ahh!]

Originally Posted by Thorpeland

Well my credit card is burning a hole in my wallet but its making me ask some questions first.

I need a new telephoto lens and my research has narrowed it down to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L. The question now is IS or Non-IS. Is there anyone who HAS used both?

I currently own the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS, so I do know how great IS can be. But I feel it really shines because of the f4 lens, easily giving me those 2 extra stops in low light. But is it as needed on a f2.8? Or, enough to justify the extra $600? I will be shooting some portraits and sports... night time soccer games under stadium lights and maybe some roller derby ( that should be interesting). If im going to spend the money on the f2.8 tele, I want it to be the right one.

Any thoughts on these lenses would be great. Thanks!

[queue=DHarry]Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do...[/end DHarry]
You can probably answer your own question by going thru some of your past work and comparing the action, lighting, blur, and Exif of these to future events. You will probably decide to hedge your bets, buy it once, and save money in the long run by buying the IS lens. Discount what I say as L glass won't fit my camera. But you may be able to answer this one on your own. Remember, too, that you can always turn IS off IF you buy it. The contrary is not true. I bought the VR on two lenses and VC on 2 more. I am pleased.

[AndrewCCM]

I find the IS on the F2.8 version indispensable. Not so much for sports...but pretty much everything else. The non-IS version is quite good (very sharp), but when you get in lower light shooting and you can't get your shutter speeds up, 200mm can be tough to handhold. I read a lot from users and can say many times I see people moving from non-IS versions to IS versions later. I rarely, if ever, see someone selling their IS to buy a non.

The 70-200IS F2.8 is one lens I could not be without.

[Riff Raff]

Heck, I love the IS for taking any photo at 200mm since it keeps the viewfinder from jumping around on me. I decided in the end that if I was going to invest that much in a lens that I'd probably be using for a long time, I'd better just go whole hog and get the IS version. It's helped very obviously on numerous shots at long focal lengths and shutter speeds. I don't really even think about whether 1/60 is really appropriate at 200mm, I just do it and it generally turns out fine.

[Thorpeland]

Thanks for the reply's all. I think Andrew nailed it, I don't want to feel i need to upgrade later to the IS from the non. I often find myself trying to shoot an indoor or outdoor evening event where lighting isnt the best. And thats where I think the IS will shine. Again, my theory of 'you get what you pay for' applies here.

[canoflan]

I have the IS version and let me tell you when I go from that lens to primes (non IS primes that is) in certain situations, you feel like you are going from a getting a back rub to a bumpy ride in a jeep in terms of the difference.

I wouldn't trade IS for anything and frankly and going through some serious lens contemplateon on some telephoto primes for wildlife because of IS vs having to tripod 100% of the time.

Pat

[Thorpeland]

Originally Posted by canoflan

I have the IS version and let me tell you when I go from that lens to primes (non IS primes that is) in certain situations, you feel like you are going from a getting a back rub to a bumpy ride in a jeep in terms of the difference.

I wouldn't trade IS for anything and frankly and going through some serious lens contemplateon on some telephoto primes for wildlife because of IS vs having to tripod 100% of the time.

Pat

Thanks Pat this is excellent first hand info. This is also the general consensus im getting from other reviews on the web im reading.

[SHIFTcanadian]

I personally have had both the IS and non-IS. I dont know if I got a bad copy or not, but the IS version was not as sharp as the non-IS.

The IQ on the non-IS is much better in my opinion as well.

Either way you cant go wrong, the 70-200 is a beast of a lens

[Riff Raff]

There have been some reviews that showed one of the other three 70-200mm lenses to be slightly sharper, but IMO they're just splitting hairs at that point. All four of them seem to be fantastic lenses.

[Thorpeland]

Originally Posted by SHIFTcanadian

I personally have had both the IS and non-IS. I dont know if I got a bad copy or not, but the IS version was not as sharp as the non-IS.

The IQ on the non-IS is much better in my opinion as well.

Either way you cant go wrong, the 70-200 is a beast of a lens

This is good information. You're not the first to say they were able to get some sharper shots with the non-IS. Which is really strange to me. But interesting.

Were you using it with the IS turned on while on a tripod? Ive heard that can have a negative effect. My main concern is hand held low light shooting.


RiffRaff, I think you're right. It comes down to such nit-picking. The differences become so slight at this level of lens. I know for sure I want the f2.8 over the f4. Im just trying to justify the IS. Thanks!

[lhdvies]

I would recommend the IS also for all the reasons stated already. I have both the70-200/ 4.0 IS and the 2.8 IS and love them both. In lower light situations the 2.8 IS can be a photo saver.

[Thorpeland]

Thanks Ihdvies, I agree. In low light IS is just worth is money. Id be kicking myself if I couldn't get the shots I wanted and had to sit and think "what if...". lol

Well, I made the purchase from Amazon.com. Im a little light headed, dizzy and nauseous after seeing the final price and clicking "confirm purchase". But, buying this lens does give me reason to use the dancing banana smiley here in the forum.

Thanks to everyone for your input. It was of great help.

[lhdvies]

You've just purchased one of the best and quickest focusing lenses canon makes. Be careful or you will want to "weld" it to your 30D.LOLOL-Congrats, You're going to love it!!

[Thorpeland]

lol Thanks! Im sure I'll enjoy it. :)

[AndrewCCM]

Congrats...

BTW: On the reviews of sharpness...I agree it's splitting hairs really. The others may be a tad sharper...My sis owns a non-IS F4 version, but you won't be disappointed in the IS version. To me, the IS handholding ability produces more keepers (sharper) than a non-IS version. All things being equal on a tripod locked down, I think the non-IS version is a tad sharper...But seriously...I can't imagine you being unhappy with the IS.

Enjoy! And be sure to post some pics...