Canon 70-200... Is the newer version worth the price tag?
Dec 21, 2011 22:53:06 #
Candiceob14
Loc: Central Texas
I really want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens for indoor sports photography and for the longer midrange. My question is if the newer version is worth the hefty price hike or is the "older" lens gonna get the job done? Thanks for your thoughts!!
Dec 21, 2011 23:15:52 #
Candiceob14 wrote:
I really want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens for indoor sports photography and for the longer midrange. My question is if the newer version is worth the hefty price hike or is the "older" lens gonna get the job done? Thanks for your thoughts!!
Try this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
Dec 21, 2011 23:34:57 #
Candiceob14
Loc: Central Texas
gessman wrote:
Try this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
Candiceob14 wrote:
I really want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens for indoor sports photography and for the longer midrange. My question is if the newer version is worth the hefty price hike or is the "older" lens gonna get the job done? Thanks for your thoughts!!
Try this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
Thanks for taking the time to reply. It looks like this is a review of the original non IS lens compared to the "new" IS lens. I'm wondering if the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is worth the price increase. I'll try to see if there is a review on this site for this comparison! Thanks again!
Dec 21, 2011 23:39:13 #
Candiceob14 wrote:
quote=gessman quote=Candiceob14 I really want th... (show quote)
I have not owned the old version, but do have the new one. When I was deciding on which I wanted, as well as the f4 version of the lens, all my research led me to believe that the way to go was with the new one. Whether or not you would see a difference is open to conjecture and probably only you can decide that. If you are close enough to a camera store that carries both, I'd suggest that you take your camera body there and shoot some identical shots with both lens and consider that strongly in your decision making process. Good luck. It's never easy to choose, all things considered when one is much more expensive than the other.
Dec 21, 2011 23:43:29 #
Personally, I didn't think the IS was worth the nearly $800 in cost difference. IS only gives you an extra 2-4 stops, and I can hand-hold the 70-200 down to 1/60th easily and even slower with good bracing. Most of the movement in my pictures is from the subject(s). And the IS adds nearly 2 pounds!
Dec 22, 2011 11:43:38 #
I must have the old 70-200 2.8 IS as I have had it for a number of years, but think it is the best lens and use it most of the time. I have the 400mm L without IS and don't really care for it. Pictures don't seem to be as sharp as the 70-200
Dec 22, 2011 12:03:31 #
bee7474 wrote:
I must have the old 70-200 2.8 IS as I have had it for a number of years, but think it is the best lens and use it most of the time. I have the 400mm L without IS and don't really care for it. Pictures don't seem to be as sharp as the 70-200
The problem with your 400 5.6L may be technique. Take a minute and have a look:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
Dec 22, 2011 14:24:40 #
Candiceob14 wrote:
quote=gessman quote=Candiceob14 I really want th... (show quote)
You're sure right. I grabbed that rather hurriedly and failed to do my due diligence. S'cuse me please.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.