Printable View
I'm looking forward to buy a 70-200 range lens. My question is all about the pros and cons of either lenses versus the price difference. I'm questionning the IS system, regarding the fact that I had a 28-135 IS wich I didnt like...(not the IS but the lens)
please help !
thanks guys...
which 70-200 non IS are you talking about? 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/4?
Canon makesfour 70-200s
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM = ~$600
EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM = ~$1000
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM = ~$1250
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM = ~$1600
The big question is if you need the bigger aperture--are you shooting indoors and/or low-light outdoors, particularly to stop fast action? If so, you need a higher shutter speed and thus are better off with a bigger aperture. But if you're shooting outdoors in better light, and/or you're shooting subjects that don't move fast, you can go for the smaller aperture. And even if you're shooting in bad light, if your subjects aren't moving, you can get away with the larger aperture + IS (though in my book, I'd rather have the 2.8 non-IS than the 4.0 IS--just more versatility).
Bryan's review of the 4.0 non-IS includes the line "arguably Canon's best value "L" Lens." And at $600, that's hard to beat. Pro-quality build and optics for (I think) the lowest price of an L-series lens. Hard to argue with that.
On the other hand, the 2.8 IS is hands down one of the best lenses a non-pro will ever own. I think that if you're going to drop $1250 on a very very good lens, why not dig out another $350 and get a great lens? The IS is worth it. I don't know that the IS is worth the $400 difference between the 4.0 and the 4.0 IS.
In my mind, the decision isn't between IS and non-IS. It's about $1000. Will the 2.8 IS be 2.6x better than the 4.0 non-IS for you? If you want bang for the buck, get the 4.0 non-IS. If you want the best, get the 2.8 IS. Compromising for the 2.8 non-IS or the 4.0 IS seems a little pointless to me.
And you can't really compare a 28-135mm IS to an L-series. The L lenses are a dramatic step up. Like you said, it wasn't the IS part of the 28-135 that doesn't impress you; it was other attributes of the lens.
My 24-105mm L IS is great. I can shoot 1/4 sec exposures without a tripod, and the results are nice and sharp. IS is worth it, if you want to spend the money on it.
Sorry, I made a mistake in the topic subject... I meant 70-200 F4 IS or 70-200 F2.8 non-IS !
But Jaell, nice reply, I really appreciate and taking notes out of it. Thanks
Two other things I can add, then:
The 2.8 non-IS will be better at stopping fast action, the 4.0 IS might be a smidge better at capturing low-light conditions when you don't have a tripod. So the 2.8 will be a bit more versatile--particularly in those situations when you don't need (or want) IS (e.g., tripod).
I still think that paying $400 more for IS on the 4.0 is a bit much; you're almost doubling the price of the non-IS lens. At the same time, getting the IS version of the 2.8 is only 30% more expensive than the non-IS. And think of buyer's remorse: you get the IS 4.0, you're gonna wonder if you should've ponied up a few hundred more bucks to get the 2.8, or if you should've saved $400 and gotten the non-IS 4.0... and if you get the 2.8 non-IS, you're gonna wonder if you should've spent a bit more for the IS.
Or you could punt. Get the 4.0 non-IS. Find out if its 'limitations' really restrict what you want to do. If so, you're out "only" $600 (and you can probably recoup a good chunk of that if you take good care of the lens) and you can buy one of the more expensive models later. This scenario is harder to do if you go for the 4.0 IS or the 2.8 non-IS.
My motto (that I borrowed from someone else) is that you don't skimp on lenses. If you compromise, do it cheaply and temporarily (i.e., don't buy something middle-of-the-road that will just end up taking space in your bag), and treat your lens purchases like investments. A photography teacher of mine once said that lenses were like mattresses: you might not notice when you put out a lot of money and get a good one, but you certainly notice it when you compromise. And given the amount of time you spend in bed (or with a lens), you don't want to make compromises.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundfault
<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000;"]I've been stuck with the same dilemma for a while and because of a lack of funds I'm 90% sure I'll eventually go with the200mm f/2.8 L II USM prime. It's a 2.8 and is relatively small, light and inexpensive. I know it's not a zoom but I think it's worth considering.
<p class="MsoNormal"]
<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaell
<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Agreed, while I'm fairly new toserious photographyI've had similar experiences with tools of all sorts. (Yes, I think of photography equipment as tools.) It's especially true of rifle scopes,a tool (not to mention another type of optics)I've got quite a bit of experience with. Fixed power (as opposed to varible power)scopes (the equivalant of a prime lens if you will)are renouned for their clarity and high light transmition. I have to believe the same wound be true, at least to some extent,of a prime lense as opposed to a zoom.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]I also believeI'd have uses for a 200mm f/2.8 L II USMevenif I later managed to get my hands on a70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.
<p class="MsoNormal"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]
Do not forget that for that extra $400 you not only get the "New" IS but you get weather sealing (which the 70-200 F2.8 does not have either) as well. The "New" IS is supposed to be good for up to 4 stops and I cannot say if that is true but I can say that I have gotten great shots as low as 1/60 handheld at the long end (though they are less common than blurry cam shots) on my 30D.
Also as great as the 70-20mm F/2.8 can be, take a few moments and think long and hard about how you are going to be using it. If you have any inclination to hike, or plan to handhold this focal length for long periods of time, remember that the F2.8 weights in around 1.3-1.5KG vs the F4 at .7-.75kg... Without camera body, lens caps, lens bag, or tripod ring....
I spent a week in Yosemite last year with my 70-200mm F4 IS, plus a couple of other shot focal lengths and I was caught short of breath more than a couple times on the Mist trail... I, personally, cannot justify the extra weight when I am hiking that the F2.8 would add.
My 2¢
I wouldn't buy a lens at this focal length with out IS. So I would definitely take the 4.0 IS over the 2.8.
I had the 4.0 non-IS and had a tough time finding uses for it. I have the IS 2.8 now and couldn't be happier. It is a beast though.
If I were a wealthy man, I'd own both the IS versions.
Keith,
Lets say you were rather wealthy and could make about $1250 over one summer after expenses were taken out.. would you be happy with the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS?
Oh, you're primary use would be sports, but you enjoyed shooting anything.
-Rodger
I have the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and absolutely love it. The f/2.8 really helps with DOF and low light. As I've mentioned a lot, the IS saves me and my bad practices from camera shake quite a bit.
If you are rock solid as a shooter, maybe you can live without the IS, but it is noticeable.
There is nothing wrong with the f/4.0 if you shoot in bright light and don't need really shallow DOF.