Money decision time!

Phate

Phate

Phate

Caporegime
Joined
1 Nov 2003
Posts
35,700
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Hello all,

I've pretty much set my heart on my next lens - the 70-200mm

Now theres 4 version...

f/4.0 - £300
f/4.0 IS - £580
f/2.8 - £600
f/2.8 IS - £960

Now I can't really afford the 2.8 IS :(

But the 3 before it are within my budget...

Question is...to IS or not to IS...

is (see what I did there? :p) the IS worth it? I've never used it before so I guess it's something I can't miss...I'm undecided on whether to get the 4.0 or 2.8.

I'm leaning more towards the 2.8, but for the same money and similar results I could get the IS 4.0 which is all so very tempting!!!

I'll hopefully be doing lots of motorsport this year, maybe venturing into a bit of nature photography which I'll probably splash out for a Sigma 150 prime for that (which I'll be using for Macro work as well)

What do you guys think?

Which one? :)
 
Go for the f/4 IS, cracking lens as it is without IS but if you are doing motorsport photography then maybe IS would be a good idea.
 
IS is handy for hand held panning shots and will eliminate camera shakes from shaky hands. I used it on my 17-85mm Lens to do some 1-1.5 second exposures on water to get the trail effect, as where i took the shots a tripod wasn't able to be used. It worked out reasonably well for that.

As to the choices above i have plumped for the 4.0L IS version as well and collected it today.

SCM
 
200mm is not enough for Wildlife and maybe even motorsport.

If you don't plan on buying a longer lens then go for the F2.8 version because you can add a 1.4x or 2x convertor and still retain auto focus.
 
You can get the 2.8 L IS quite a bit cheaper than that from Kerso. I got mine from him.

(EDIT: Forgot that my reduced price was after the rebate of £135). Nevertheless, the 2.8 L IS is simply a stunning lens. I use it with the 2x converter for my wildlife stuff and it's still great.
 
Last edited:
If you can stretch to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, then why not go for the Sigma 120-300, since it can had online for about the same price as youve put the 70-200 IS.
Fast glass and the added reach of 300mm and damn good at motorsport.
Stick a TC on and even more reach.
 
your trying to toss up between having 2.8 and having IS. its more money but the answer to your questions simply is the 2.8 IS.

I really wont use my 70 - 300 now because it doesn't feature IS and I cant stand looking through it without the optics stablized. I firmly believe that your composure improves when using a telephoto hand held with and IS drive working. I hate looking at the god awful shake that a non IS telephoto lens produces, its off putting..

FYI, I know I am no help :P
 
Shoei said:
If you can stretch to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, then why not go for the Sigma 120-300, since it can had online for about the same price as youve put the 70-200 IS.
Fast glass and the added reach of 300mm and damn good at motorsport.
Stick a TC on and even more reach.
Click to expand...

Where are you shopping. I can't find it anywhere near that price.
 
MaxPower said:
Where are you shopping. I can't find it anywhere near that price.
Click to expand...

Bodget & Scarper online camera supplies ;)
Should have said 2nd hand price, brain not functioning some what.
Still think the 120-300 may be a better option, unless the 120 bit is too long and leaves a gap in lens coverage.
 
SCM I'm sorry I doubted you but for a second there I couldn't get my head around IS making a handheld 1-1.5 second exposure adequate.

So I gave it a go with my Nikon VR lens. Handheld, 1 second @ 18mm f/3.5 in a room lit by a 60w light bulb and no flash and the results were pretty damn good! Not tack sharp but then I wasn't expecting that - I also wasn't expecting it to be as good as it was.

Phate I reckon if you can save £600 you can wait a wee while for another £300 odd and go for the lens you know you really want. :)

Panzer

I really haven't made the most of this lens yet!
 
Panzerbjorn said:
SCM I'm sorry I doubted you but for a second there I couldn't get my head around IS making a handheld 1-1.5 second exposure adequate.
Click to expand...

No problem :) you never know what you can do until you try and the reason i did my water trail shots handheld without tripod was due to location. A single lane bridge over some falls in Killin meant i was tight against a low wall and had no choice but to rely on the IS. I was being buffeted by the cars passing by and coaches full of tourists passing behind me moving me about.

SCM
 
A.N.Other said:
You can get the 2.8 L IS quite a bit cheaper than that from Kerso. I got mine from him.
Click to expand...

These quotes are from Kerso!

Ah dammit, looks like I'm saving for a little while longer then eh? :rolleyes: I guess I'd only end up buying it in the long run...

Fstop...that lens still available? cheers dude! :p - I'll catch you online for p&p details etc. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom