masonmike Loc: Vancouver, Washington

Coming into a little money in July. Was considering getting a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS. I already own the 70-200mm F/4 non-is. Have had good success with the F/4. But the IS plus being able to shoot in low light appeals to me. Also thinking of pairing it with a 1.4X tele extender. Is it worth the extra money? My camera body is a Canon 70D. Any advice from my fellow hogs would be appreciated. Thanks

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I hope you are aware of the size and weight of the 2.8 version ! Because of the size and weight, you will want to be on a monopod and NOT hand holding it - even though it has IS ! You have a decent higher ISO body, so the advantage of the 2.8 is really questionable. The only reason that I would get a 2.8 version ( the II version of the 2.8) is to put a 2X behind it so as to have a 140-400 F5.6 ! - and then definitely be on a monopod.

masonmike Loc: Vancouver, Washington

I am aware of the weight issue because I handled one at my local camera store & its a beast compared to the F/4. Thanks Imagemaster.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

If your heart is really set on the f2.8 with IS go for it. The new model is really a great lens. But, if your having good shots using the f4 non-IS, you may want to sell the f4 non-IS, and get a f4 with IS. It is much lighter, and easy to weld around. You can always adjust your ISO for a faster sensor on the 70D. If you really need a little more reach, go for the Tamron 150-600mm, that is a really stellar lens, but a little slow light wise, and heavy.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I use the 70-200 2.8L ISII lens on portraits almost everyday. When I am not in studio I never use a tripod. I use the lens with IS on. I shoot focal lengths usually around 185mm and shutter speeds at least 250. My apertures are typically between F2.8 and F5.6. You can go to my website and tell me if my B&W images are not sharp enough hand held. All of the B&W images you see on my site are handheld with the 70-200.
I am on a full frame sensor with a 5DMKII and 5DMKIII.

Now I do own the 400 2.8L lens and use that on a gimbal head for wildlife or on a monopod for football. Do not try and handhold that lens!

I would highly recommend the F2.8 lens for anyone doing portraits. That being said. I would also tell you to spend two years working on your post processing skills if you plan on doing portraits. It will make more difference than the lens choice.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

I have not used my 70 - 200 2.8 since this afternoon shooting geese and goslings on little lakes around here. As usual, I had my Gitzo carbon fiber monopod, but didn't bother to use it. I have no trouble handling my 5D Mark II with batterypack base with the 70-200 2.8, which makes a great rig. First used the 70 -m200 with my EOS 1 and EOS - 3s. I don't mind packin' whatever it takes to do the best possible job with the least possible limitations. Years ago when in Libya I packed a 10 pound camera bag (with leica, 4 lenses, a Rollieflex, an incident light meter, filters, small tripod, etc ) from the chopper drop with my 4 Air Sea Rescue pararescue buddies in the sandy Sahara from where we walked 5 days back to the Mediterranean coast for our pick-up from that escape and evasion training mission. Whatever it takes to do the job is what I take.

Thus I always purchase the "biggest glass" available in each focal length I get -- thus 50 mm f 1.0 to 600mm f 4.0, etc.
A half capable lens is not the best buy ! Someone said above that it was too heavy. With that attitude, then a box brownie should do, or better, a pin point box. Or a bit of exercise to shape up. In fact, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well ! Give it your best, or leave it for someone else to do. I've been at this photography business since 1952, in 32 countries and 4 continents, 6 1/2 years overseas, and I will Not buy limiting equipment. That's a loser's philosophy. The 70 - 200 2.8 has the advantages you mentioned, and you will be delighted with its flexibility and performance ! Go for it !!! ......
soccermick333@yahoo.com

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mike, if you are not using it for indoor sports or night football, and you are not a big portrait guy, I would not waste my money on it.
I'll bet there are a slough of people with that lens that don't use it's capacities.
Mike, IF you need it, get it. If not use the money on another lens that will make more impact on your photography, like a couple of Canon 600 flashes and a radio trigger! :lol:
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

If money is no object, go for it, there is no negative once you have already accepted the weight factor. If money is a consideration, then another option like the 70-200mm f/4 IS could make a lot of sense. The question is, what is the $1k difference worth to you? Another way to think of it, do you have the $3k to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and another $1k of toys like the flash SS suggested? If the answer is yes, then what we say about alternatives doesn't really matter. If the answer is no, then you might want to at least consider other options.

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

I have used this lens successfully for years both with and without a 2x. Results have been excellent handheld as well as on a tripod. While I have monopods I've never found a reason to use them with this lens, as the IS is excellent and under most circumstances hand holding is not a problem even for this 70 year old of small stature.

CanonShot Loc: Lancaster County, PA

Ditto this!

mldavis2

The Canon 70-200L f/2.8 is generally acknowledged as one of the finest zoom lenses made by anyone. But why would you want to degrade it with a 1.4X extender if you need more power? You have the f/4 lens. Is that extra stop worth the extra money in what work you plan to do? Why not move up to a longer lens and extend your focal length that way?

I use my 70-200L f/2.8 for indoor portrait shots but I'm not shooting pro portraits. A bump of ISO could take care of lighting issues for you unless you really need the shallow depth of field. If you want a bigger lens, why not grab a 100-400L IS and use it without (or with) the extender. I use my 100-400L hand held in the field for wildlife. Yes, it's heavy but it works when you can't use a 'pod.

Railheel

This is a shot I just made with my 70-200 2.8 IS. I have had this lens for 6-7 years and love it. Hand held for me is no problem.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

The 70-200 2.8L is one of the finest all round lenses you can get. Mine is old school, I think I got it 18 years ago for my EOS Elan (remember that one) and it was my first L series piece of glass. I have upgraded the body many times since then, and I suffer from GAS, have several more L lenses today. I still love my old 70-200. But, since I suffer from GAS, I am thinking of getting a current version w/ IS. Go for it!

Bob Boner

I have both. I use the 2.8 indoors to photograph my grandkids at basketball, and the f/4 outdoors.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

IS depends upon how steady your hands are. If you are dead on steady with the F4 you don't need the 2.8 IS If you want the extra speed get the 2.8 non IS and save the $1,000 for another lens. You are using a crop sensor which I am sure you know. With the 1.4 extender at the long end you will need a mono or tripod. No one can hand hold a a 500mm lens (thats a rough guess) unless in extremely bright light and have the arms and hands of a weight lifter.