Just tried a 70-200 2.8 IS, and am left AWSTRUCK. What do I do NOW?

[kitaoka]

Consider purchasing used. Not sure where you live, but I use craigslist.org for all of my lens purchases. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately the workhorse in my bag and gets the most use. I personally won't by a lens with a focal length of 200+ without IS now. As a fall back you should look at the EF 135 f2.0 L. It is a remarkable lens and is so reasonably priced. I purchased mine used for $650.

[George Slusher]

It depends upon what you want to do. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is the "worst" of Canon's 70-200mm zooms from an image quality standpoint, but it may be the most useful for some purposes. If you want the best image quality and to save $600, get the 70-200mm f/4L IS, the best of the four. (Several reviewers have called the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS the "best zoom lens," period--any size, any manufacturer.)


The f/2.8L IS lens has some good features (relatively wide aperture, reasonably good, though not great, IS), but it is VERY bulky and heavy. (Believe me, I carried one around all day last Friday at a horse show. For that purpose, I didn't have a lot of choice, though. The show was indoors and I made good use of the f/2.8 aperture.) Whether it's best for a particular person would depend upon what she/he wants to do with it. Sports and portraits would favor the f/2.8 lens (for faster shutter speeds and better blurred background, respectively), while landscapes, wildlife, flowers, etc., would favor the f/4 lens (sharper, better contrast, lighter weight, much better IS).


I have both the f/2.8L IS and the f/4L IS lenses. (Well, I also have the f/4L non-IS, but it's destined for eBay.) I bought them used on eBay, but saved only $374 on the f/2.8L IS and $166 on the f/4L IS, compared to the prices on B&H. Like Ken Rockwell, I've found that I can handhold the f/4L IS lens at a SLOWER shutter speed than the f/2.8L IS, despite the aperture advantage. (At 200mm, I can get good results (better than 50% keepers) down to 1/15 sec on the f/4L IS, but have to go to 1/25-1/30 with the f/2.8L IS.) That's because the f/4L IS has a better IS system. The lighter weight also makes it easier to hold. The f/4L IS is ergonomically better--one can easily zoom with one finger of the right hand, for example.


Consider how often you would use the f/2.8 aperture (realizing that the lens is not spectacularly sharp at that aperture) and whether that would be worth $600 (new) or $400+ (used).

[Colin]

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately the workhorse in my bag and gets the most use. I personally won't by a lens with a focal length of 200+ without IS now.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

IS makes a lens way more useful, for sure, though I'm not looking to ditch my 400 f/5.6 because my 100-400 zoom has IS and the same aperture at 400mm. If you've got light, and something steady to brace yourself on, or can deal with a tripod, or just press it against a tree, or lay down on a rock, or whatever.... But yeah, IS would be a fantastic addition. If there was an IS version, i'd totally be looking to trade in...