Canon F2.8 70-200 IS vs Canon F2.8 70-200 is 2
Nov 17, 2011 08:26:07 #
I own a 5D and have the L 70-200 F4 non is currently. I enjoy taking portraits and miss the blurred backround that I could get with a wider lense opening.
Currently use the L 24-105MM IS as my basic lense. Also, have the 100-400 L IS.
Have thought about the benefits of trading the current 70-200 non IS to either the 2.8 version of IS or IS2. Understand that the 2 version has closer focusing parameters and can be handheld for more stops.
Question: Is it worth the extra money for the 2?
Would enjoy hearing from anyone who has made this trade-up.
Thank you.
Currently use the L 24-105MM IS as my basic lense. Also, have the 100-400 L IS.
Have thought about the benefits of trading the current 70-200 non IS to either the 2.8 version of IS or IS2. Understand that the 2 version has closer focusing parameters and can be handheld for more stops.
Question: Is it worth the extra money for the 2?
Would enjoy hearing from anyone who has made this trade-up.
Thank you.
Nov 18, 2011 07:29:34 #
Steve,
I too have a 5D and use as my primary lens the L 24-70. I shoot a lot of children portraits, grandchildren and their friends, and have been extremely pleased with the results. I also have the 100 - 400 zoom (cannon) and like it.
One of my portrait professors pointed out that if you really want great shots you almost have to use the tripod and for best results a focal length of at least 100mm. I'm envious of your collection of L lens.
Photo Fool
I too have a 5D and use as my primary lens the L 24-70. I shoot a lot of children portraits, grandchildren and their friends, and have been extremely pleased with the results. I also have the 100 - 400 zoom (cannon) and like it.
One of my portrait professors pointed out that if you really want great shots you almost have to use the tripod and for best results a focal length of at least 100mm. I'm envious of your collection of L lens.
Photo Fool
Nov 18, 2011 07:39:35 #
Steve,
I too have a 5D and use as my primary lens the L 24-70. I shoot a lot of children portraits, grandchildren and their friends, and have been extremely pleased with the results. I also have the 100 - 400 zoom (cannon) and like it.
One of my portrait professors pointed out that if you really want great shots you almost have to use the tripod and for best results a focal length of at least 100mm. I'm envious of your collection of L lens.
Photo Fool
I too have a 5D and use as my primary lens the L 24-70. I shoot a lot of children portraits, grandchildren and their friends, and have been extremely pleased with the results. I also have the 100 - 400 zoom (cannon) and like it.
One of my portrait professors pointed out that if you really want great shots you almost have to use the tripod and for best results a focal length of at least 100mm. I'm envious of your collection of L lens.
Photo Fool
Nov 18, 2011 08:18:40 #
I just upgraded to a Canon EF 2.8 70-200 L IS II from the EF 2.8 70-200 L IS and it was worth the price. The color, image stabilization, everything about it was worth the cost. I always for the the largest F stop for depth of field and low light pics.
Nov 18, 2011 08:21:28 #
Thanks so much for your reply. I enjoyed viewing your portraits. The cropped middle shot is spectacular!
Nov 18, 2011 08:23:17 #
Thanks for the feedback. I heard from others that the 2.8 IS 2 was worth the extra money from others. Quick question, do you take this lens with you when you travel or is it too heavy to lug?
Nov 18, 2011 08:32:07 #
i have the 2.8 is 2 and as others have stated..it is worth the extra bucks.
it's a little heavy, but you get used to it really quick.
it's a little heavy, but you get used to it really quick.
Nov 18, 2011 11:05:15 #
www.luminous-landscape.com under Product Reviews should give you a good professional assessment of the answer to your question, not to discount what others have said here but Michael Reichmann at that site tests and compares issues just as you are asking about. You'll like what you find there and good luck with your decision.
Nov 18, 2011 12:29:27 #
Thank you so much for introducing me to Michaels site. I spent a good time on it - he has taken some amazing photos and offers personal advice on equipment he has used himself.
He rates the 2.8 70-200 IS 2 very highly and must have added it to his collection fairly recently. He previously was using the same lense without the IS. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into any detail as to why he made the change or the comparative benefits/disadvantages of the two lenses.
He rates the 2.8 70-200 IS 2 very highly and must have added it to his collection fairly recently. He previously was using the same lense without the IS. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into any detail as to why he made the change or the comparative benefits/disadvantages of the two lenses.
Nov 18, 2011 13:00:22 #
Nov 18, 2011 13:11:50 #
yaterman96 wrote:
Worth every penny an works great with the 2xlll
I agree.
With the 2X III your IS II covers a range from 70 to 400mm.
Nov 18, 2011 13:25:35 #
SteveH wrote:
Thank you so much for introducing me to Michaels site. I spent a good time on it - he has taken some amazing photos and offers personal advice on equipment he has used himself.
He rates the 2.8 70-200 IS 2 very highly and must have added it to his collection fairly recently. He previously was using the same lense without the IS. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into any detail as to why he made the change or the comparative benefits/disadvantages of the two lenses.
He rates the 2.8 70-200 IS 2 very highly and must have added it to his collection fairly recently. He previously was using the same lense without the IS. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into any detail as to why he made the change or the comparative benefits/disadvantages of the two lenses.
I thought what he has to say at the end of the piece was pretty significant in that he points out that there are capabilities that the IS goes well beyond the non-IS in aiding in good shots. Combine that with the decreased capabilities in the same situations of the f4 non-IS and he would seem to be saying that it might be worth it to make the switch.
"The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility. It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth the extra money, I don't know what is.
If you already own the original 70~200mm f/2.8L then the decision to upgrade is a bit tougher. You already know how good this lens is. If you can find someone to give you a good price for your old lens, and feel that adding IS will make sense for your style of shooting, then I believe it's worthwhile."
Nov 18, 2011 16:18:26 #
i have the IS model...and so far, i have never turned on the switch. i have learned to use the 24-70mm 2.8L for the last year or so and it doesn't have IS.
Nov 18, 2011 16:43:25 #
Thanks for the further clarification. I have the 70-200 F4 or F4.5 non IS. So going to the 2.8 with IS will make a significant difference. I see they are getting around $500 or more for the non IS on Ebay.
Nov 18, 2011 20:07:20 #
jimberton wrote:
i have the IS model...and so far, i have never turned on the switch. i have learned to use the 24-70mm 2.8L for the last year or so and it doesn't have IS.
I would like to hear more about this. I read your profile and see that you are an accomplished professional photographer, teacher of many things photographic, and I'm wondering why you would refuse to use IS on your 2.8. The only reason I can think of is that you don't want to get into some habitual pattern of using the IS that would have a negative impact on your use of the 24-70 in moments of temporary forgetfulness. Either that or you're one of those rare folks who can handhold a 200mm at 1/8th without the IS which would then potentially make your lens equal to a f1 or less with IS. I don't get it. Help me out here, please.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.