Canon 70-200 f2.8L

Vinnyvagus

Vinnyvagus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone

I'm looking at both the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L lens but there is a big difference in price between then non IS and the IS II versions...nearly double the price I have seen.

Now I'm wondering if the IS version is in fact worth the extra money? I am trying to justify paying out hundreds more for having IS you see.

Anyway would like your thoughts.
 
Note:

There are two 70-200mm 2.8IS versions, MkI and a MkII and there is about £500 - £600 difference between them.
 
I've just seen that :)
So if I am looking at the f2.8 IS USM (Mark 1) and the non-IS version... there is a few hundred pound difference and will it be worth spending a lot more money for having IS?
 
There was a long thread on this about a month ago.

I would say yes if you can afford it and feel it will be of use to you.

Personally with what i shoot i would rather the £500 in my back pocket as i would most likely turn the IS off anyway.
 
The 2.8 is a big heavy lens and I find the IS to be useful when toting it around all day. I think it must be an age thing these days as I had no problems getting sharp pics 30 years ago with big lenses :).

I would say, if you can afford it go with the IS, it at least gives you the option switching it off. If not then get the non IS and accept the higher speeds you will need.

I think you will be happy whichever option you go with, it is a good lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top