70-200mm f/2.8 IS vs non-IS

jammir · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:06

I have the f/4 atm and find it bit slow in the current light and wanted to pickup a f/2.8 and im stuck between the IS and non-IS theres a big diff in price around £300 as I always use a monopod or tripod with my 70-200, is it worth the extra 300 notes?

Derek W · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:07

depends on what you're shooting? Wildlife - IS may be better, sports or anything with a bit of panning the non IS would suffice

mcc49 · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:24

The IS version of the 70-200's has better optics than the non IS version also and are weathersealed.

peterattheboro · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:26

Not used the non IS but the IS version is absolutley brilliant.

jammir · 5 Dec 2009 at 17:43

guess its going to be the IS cheapest I've seen is £1175 is that a good price?

Vertigo · 6 Dec 2009 at 00:32

mcc49 said:
The IS version of the 70-200's has better optics than the non IS version also and are weathersealed.

Says who? Yes it has weathersealing but, to my knowledge, the optics are identical aside from the IS mechanism itself.

mcc49 · 6 Dec 2009 at 00:50

Says Canon and pretty much all review sites out there. Both the F2.8 and F4 IS version of the 70-200 has better optics and uses different lens construction to their non IS counterpart.

TangoUK · 6 Dec 2009 at 10:47

And from all the reviews ive seen,the F4 IS is the best,optically,of them all.
Tango

john_s · 6 Dec 2009 at 10:50

The IS is impressive.

If you've got it and don't want it at the time, you can always turn it off. You can't turn it on if you want it and it's not there.

jammir · 15 Dec 2009 at 00:02

had the 2.8 IS for a few days now and is "a lot" heavier then the f4, I've read on sites that even with its weight it doesnt need to be supported by the lens and holding the camera body is fine is this true (this is in regards to when im carrying it around)

john_s · 15 Dec 2009 at 09:00

TBH, I'd never even thought about it with mine.

It's not fallen off yet.

peterattheboro · 15 Dec 2009 at 11:18

jammir said:
had the 2.8 IS for a few days now and is "a lot" heavier then the f4, I've read on sites that even with its weight it doesnt need to be supported by the lens and holding the camera body is fine is this true (this is in regards to when im carrying it around)

True indeed.

Mine hasn't fallen off either

A.N.Other · 15 Dec 2009 at 12:23

I carry my 2.8 IS around just holding the camera body most of the time really. It's never dropped off yet

If the choice is between the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS, then for me it was a fairly easy decision. The IS model is fantastic.

Rojin · 15 Dec 2009 at 20:57

jammir said:
guess its going to be the IS cheapest I've seen is £1175 is that a good price?

I had been looking at the same and I hadn't seen it as cheap as that! Cheapest I had seen was around £1300 then up to £1500... Sadly I just don't have the money so will probably go with the Sigma at around £579, no IS though obviously. £1175 does make it tempting though...

jammir · 15 Dec 2009 at 21:57

Yeah ended up paying £1190, think its a gray import but was from a UK based retailer and lens had INT warranty card so thats fine with me.

Think I have all the lenses I will ever need for my shooting styles, Sigma 10-20, 16-35L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 50mm 1.4, 100mm macro and 135L, was thinking about selling the 24-105L but still use it a lot on 5D aswell as the 7D, it was the kit lens for the 5D so ill hang on I guess.

I'm very happy with the 70-200 IS just got to get used to the weight and maybe invest in a monopod.

jammir · 16 Dec 2009 at 13:46

does anyone else find at 200mm the lens isnt upto par with the f/4? and it seems to have more CA?