EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM: I have a MarkIII 5D and looking at purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens as opposed to the same lens with IS. However, from my research in prices, the IS can...

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

I have a MarkIII 5D and looking at purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens as opposed to the same lens with IS. However, from my research in prices, the IS can cost as much as $400 more. I am not fond of having to engage a tripod every time I use this lens. Is it possible to get a decent hand held shot with this lens or should I go for broke and get the IS?
Thanks.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

razboop wrote:

I have a MarkIII 5D and looking at purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens as opposed to the same lens with IS. However, from my research in prices, the IS can cost as much as $400 more. I am not fond of having to engage a tripod every time I use this lens. Is it possible to get a decent hand held shot with this lens or should I go for broke and get the IS?
Thanks.

I have been using a non IS version for years, mostly on a monopod. Although IS would be nice, I have been able to live without it. This was taken last year,,,,hand held, with a 2x teleconverter.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

razboop wrote:

.. Is it possible to get a decent hand held shot with this lens ...

Of course it is possible (good example above). The extra $400 will just improve your odds. It just depends on the kind of photography you are doing.

You can always turn IS off if you have it but ....

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

I have been using a non IS version for years, mostly on a monopod. Although IS would be nice, I have been able to live without it.

Thanks for responding. This will help in my decision.

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

Of course it is possible (good example above). The extra $400 will just improve your odds. It just depends on the kind of photography you are doing.

I am fairly new to photography and I want to do it all. Right now I'm shooting everything from flowers to insects to whatever I can aim at--getting in a lot of practice.
I had purchased a 60D and the cheaper version of the 70-200 with the IS came as a bundle with the camera and lens kit. I understand that the L series is a better lens. Since I now have a better camera, I want to have the better lens as well.

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

You can always turn IS off if you have it but ....

Perhaps I should try the lens I have with the IS off and see how it goes, huh?

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

I am also new to posting questions and replies. I see that to whom and to what I have replied is not clear. Sorry.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

razboop wrote:

I am also new to posting questions and replies. I see that to whom and to what I have replied is not clear. Sorry.

Click on Quote Reply to clarify.

And after you submit, you have the option to Edit your response for about an hour.

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

selmslie wrote:

Click on Quote Reply to clarify.

And after you submit, you have the option to Edit your response for about an hour.

Thank you.
I went back to edit my previous replies to help clarify.
I will do better from now on. :D

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

razboop wrote:

I have a MarkIII 5D and looking at purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens as opposed to the same lens with IS. However, from my research in prices, the IS can cost as much as $400 more. I am not fond of having to engage a tripod every time I use this lens. Is it possible to get a decent hand held shot with this lens or should I go for broke and get the IS?
Thanks.

I'm of the opinion that 400.00 in the grand scheme of things isn't that big a deal but WISHING that you'd have sprung for the IS feature and finding out that you need it is.

Sure, I can "get by" without it...but by getting it..the situations in which I can get clear shots increases greatly.

I've never said (while shooting) "darn! last year I spent 400.00 extra dollars on IS!"

But I HAVE said..."Darn! I WISH I'd have gotten IS...I can't get a good shot!! arrggg!!!"

:)

razboop Loc: Laurel, MS

rpavich wrote:

I'm of the opinion that 400.00 in the grand scheme... (show quote)

I see your point and a good one and I'll take it. Thanks!

CanonShot Loc: Lancaster County, PA

razboop wrote:

I have a MarkIII 5D and looking at purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens as opposed to the same lens with IS. However, from my research in prices, the IS can cost as much as $400 more. I am not fond of having to engage a tripod every time I use this lens. Is it possible to get a decent hand held shot with this lens or should I go for broke and get the IS?
Thanks.

Do yourself a BIG favor and mate your 5D3 with the IS version. There are just too many situations out there that the 5D3 will perform better than you expect and you want the lens that allows your results to match your thinking/vision. You will be much better off IF the IS lens is there to support you.

Vlb

You're spending rather a large amount for the L glass, and it's worth it, believe me, but if you're going to do it, go all the way. You won't regret it. I bought this lens in the fall (with is) and my pictures are so much sharper. My only regret is not having made the leap earlier!

petermerny Loc: Whitby UK

I have been using non IS 70-200 for four years ( the IS was not available when I bought the lens ) just have to keep shutter speeds high. I also have a 70-300 with IS but rarely use the IS as I find you can use slow speed but tend to get subject movement especially on portraits.

Kinerney Loc: Leavenworth, Kansas

I have the 70-200mm IS F2.8 version and I love it, would not trade it for any other lens!