Canon 2.8 70-200 Is or Non Is

W

wjwaddell7

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20
Name
Wayne
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I am considering buying one of these lens but am not sure which?
Is the IS version worth the extra 600 odd pounds.

I am mainly looking the lens to take some photo's at local football matches.

Also some long shots at weddings in the church.

Any advise is appreciated. I know this lens may be a bit short for full reach at matches so may have to use it with an extender.


What lens do you think would be best or can you suggest one?

I dont want to spend a fortune as it is mostly hobby based work at present. Maybe in the future it will prove more favourable in receiving a few pounds
 
I just got the non-IS version. I've been using it hand-held at around f/8 and below and ISO 800 and pics are very sharp indeed even in the dim daylight we are currently having. I do not consider the IS to be worth the asking price, unless you are rich and money is no object. Presumably at weddings and football matches you can use a monopod, if not a tripod so I would go for non-IS.
 
Last edited:
I have the Is version and find it really good, yes cheaper do you want keep setting up a tripod at a wedding no thanks. Really all boils down if you have the cash spare if not your still find that the non Is will still give you great results.
 
Hi. I have the IS version, use it at football matches. Limited to action in my half/quadrant, but its fine. I've been advised against an extender, they really only work on the prime lenses. On a crop sensor you are getting closer to 300mm anyway.

I chose the IS version as I wasn't sure what other use I would put it to and decided to spend the extra, thinking it would hold its value better if I ever decided to sell (prize it from my cold, dead hands now, if you will!)
 
I have the IS version, due to the condition where my hands shake all the time, i need it really, I had a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 without IS, and had to be careful not to get any shake. I know this isn't a problem that you have mentioned, but an example of just how much you can get away with with the IS, even below 1/100sec i can get sharp shots, and that's saying something. If you can afford it, then go for it, if not, with monopod and fast enough shutter it isn't needed, and still a great lens
 
thanks all - i'll take all on board. just one last thing. Best IS mark ii version I saw is £1500. Does anyone else know of a better deal? Thats interesting about the extender as a few people on here before said they done a decent job.
 
Hi some pro's turn off IS to divert all the power to the AF system when using in good light so is it necessary??

it is for some situations but can over complicate things, 2 modes on the IS etc, i have this 2.8 IS mark one version, and TBH according the the canon guy at a trade show very little noticeable difference in picture quality between the MRKI and II, but the mark II is a little lighter, i had my 70 200mm with me so i used both and could not see a difference using my 5D then a 1Ds III and a 1DIV.

Merc
 
Last edited:
i have the non is version of this lens and i love it.

there are a few samples posted by me and others in this thread:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=275325

i can handhold 1/160 at 200mm, but it takes practise.

if you can't afford the IS version, the non is version is a good alternative and whether IS would be any use at a football match, i'm not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top