Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS vs 70-200mm f4L IS: Any advice between the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS vs 70-200mm f4L IS (or possibly the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS)? This would be my first L...

Dano Loc: North Carolina

Any advice between the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS vs 70-200mm f4L IS (or possibly the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS)? This would be my first L series glass and budget is definitely a concern. I shoot mostly portraits (indoors & out) followed by miscellaneous sports and nature. I have a steady hand but my tripod is always within reach. I shoot with a Canon 60D, 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS lens, and radio controlled speedlites (mostly with soft boxes and umbrellas). My gut says to go with the fastest glass I can afford, but I'm concerned about giving up IS (unfortunately I can't afford a 2.8 IS). Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Dano, for portraits I would get the 2.8 non IS. You won't need the speed, but It would have the better bokeh, and is as sharp or sharper. It's also faster for sports, especially indoors.
As for nature, both 200 and 300 are to short anyway, except for really large animals. Even deer are too small for my 400, let alone something shorter. That's my opinion anyway. Abd you will get many more opinions.

Dano Loc: North Carolina

SharpShooter wrote:

As for nature, both 200 and 300 are to short anyway, except for really large animals. Even deer are too small for my 400, let alone something shorter. That's my opinion anyway. Abd you will get many more opinions.

Great point, but luckily most of my nature work is more environmental... trees, creeks, waterfalls, and such. Thanks SharpShooter!

TimS Loc: GA

I have the 2.8 non-IS and live it. While I oftentimes wish I had IS to help keep the image in the viewfinder steady, I can still get the shot. When I need IS, I break out my 24-105.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

All of my lenses are non IS,,including my 70-200mm. No problems. Since I've never had an IS lens,,I don't miss it. That's not to say IS wouldn't be nice,,I'm sure it is. But if budget is a concern,,go with the 2.8

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

skidooman wrote:

All of my lenses are non IS,,including my 70-200mm. No problems. Since I've never had an IS lens,,I don't miss it. That's not to say IS wouldn't be nice,,I'm sure it is. But if budget is a concern,,go with the 2.8

same here. although some of my lenses do have IS/OS/or VR, I don't use it anyway. Learned to shoot without it...so I don't miss it either. I have it on some of my lenses...so it's there if I ever choose to use it.

makes you wonder how all those film photographers got such great shots without in-camera or in-lens stabilization.

not having stabilization will definitely help you learn how to use shutter speed and aperture.

I am definitely not knocking IS/OS/ or VR. I just don't use it.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Dano wrote:

Any advice between the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS... (show quote)

Dano,

IS is a nice feature however I own a few lenses without it. In fact, to be honest I often don't use it on lenses that have it. I go by the old rule of thumb, that is, it is not necessary as long as your shutter speed is faster than your lens length. In other words not needed, dont use it, as long as your SS is above 200. Very rarely do I shoot below that speed so I leave it off.

As for the choice between the two 70-200mm lenses defiantly go with the f2.8! It is a fantastic lens, one of the best lenses for detail you will ever own!

Here is a review of that lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_70-200_2p8

Here is a site that you can use to compare the lenses against each other:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses

Many photographers hesitate to purchase this lens because it is used. Dont just make sure you are dealing with a reputable company such as Adorama, B&H or KEH. There were quite a few of these lenses that professional photographers sold to upgrade to the version II of this lens when it came out. I for one am glad they did. I purchased a used one, saved quite a few bucks, and got a great lens!

Jim D

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

I have the 70-200 is 2.8, the old one, it is great. I use it most of the time and even the first one out still holds it value. Here are three taken with 70-200 hand held. Bee

cropped

Mt Rainier

Friend

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

bee7474 wrote:

I have the 70-200 is 2.8, the old one, it is great. I use it most of the time and even the first one out still holds it value. Here are three taken with 70-200 hand held. Bee

Bee,
I love the horse shot, my eyes were drawn right to its eye as it should be.

Your right, the value of the 70-200mm f2.8 has held fairly well. That is a testament as to how good that lens is!

Jim D

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

Thanks Jim, just a lucky shot and good equipment. Bee

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

bee7474 wrote:

Thanks Jim, just a lucky shot and good equipment. Bee

Good equipment, yes. Lucky shot, no, good composure. Photos like that belong to the photographer and come from a photographers skill. Your good skill shows in that photo.

Jim D

RDH

As I do not have any of these lenses I can not comment on there merits. However, as you tell us that you use a tripod for much of your work the IS may be irrelevant, as in most cases it cannot be used with with a tripod. Must say I,d welcome any of those lenses. Best wishes.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

A lot of us old farts made thousands of tack sharp images long before anyone started to think about "IS" I have owned the Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 L IS lens for several years and have only turned on the IS a few times. Yes, it works and it helped...but had I not had it I would have made the same images anyway...just found a work around. Had I to do it over I wouldn't pay all the extra for the IS on a max 200mm lens. Having said that...from 300 on up...yes, I would want the IS. I currently own a 400mm Canon lens without the IS and get along just fine, often using a mono pod. Had I to do it over...I'd buy the IS for the 400...

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

That is probably true, before Canon came out with the is their lens were so good I didn't really need is, but as I hate the tripod because I am lazy and usually don't have time to set it up for animal shots and need all the help I can get the is helps. Just my opinion Bee

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

bee7474 wrote:

That is probably true, before Canon came out with the is their lens were so good I didn't really need is, but as I hate the tripod because I am lazy and usually don't have time to set it up for animal shots and need all the help I can get the is helps. Just my opinion Bee

Oh..I don't mean to really disagree...but up to about 200mm one can usually hold well enough or goose the speed up enough to compensate. Above 200 it gets enough "shakeier" to be a real problem. In reality...as an old photojournalist...you are trained to always come back to the shop with a usable photo. You need to do whatever it takes to capture the image. So, in reality, if you've got IS, by all means use it! But if it is a financial buying decision...I think you could get along without it on the 70-200 mm.......