70-200 F2.8 non IS L series

[Graeme Buckland]

Would to know what people think of this lens, I can't afford the IS model so this is next best.

[peterking]

Very open question.
I know you say you can't afford the IS version but can you afford not to get it?
I bought this earlier this year and to date, whilst not yet having used it for what I bought it for, it is spectacular.
Nice and sharp. Heavy to hand hold.

This is one I got yesterday with no PP at all.http://www.peterking.id.au/cpg1416/albums/userpics/10001/IMG_5010.jpg

My main interest is Kite Surfing so looking for speed. Thus the 2.8. But IS is useless, thus the non IS.

[thetaipan]

Non IS is a beautiful lens - trouble is I can't afford that one either!!
I think the 70-200 F4 IS is similarly priced (last time I looked) as the non IS 2.8.
If I was shooting outdoor only and did not need to use that extra couple of stops of light or shallow the depth of field that little bit more I'd go for the F4. If you would use it indoors or needed to use that narrow DOF, the 2.8 is the easy winner. I wouldn't be tempted by the 2.8 IS itself personally.

[pmack]

don't forget the 2.8 is only one stop more than the f/4
and the IS will give you at LEAST an extra stop in terms of a steady shot.
so if it's handheld speed you need, the IS will be better, but if it's action you are trying to freeze, the 2.8 will be better

[Allann]

i have the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and it's my main lens, it hardly ever leaves the camera. I have never missed having IS and find that it's more than reasonable at just about anything you need to take.

[Graeme Buckland]

Thank you all for your comments, I am picking up the lens this afternoon.

[Roosta]

Graeme, Which lens did you settle on, I'm currently in the same boat. ?????

[oldfart]

Don't disregard the 70-200 f/4 non IS, it's cheap and LIGHT.

B&H's price $639us and with the AUS Dollar high now is a good time to buy one.

[Graeme Buckland]

Roosta i went with the 70-200 non IS lens, the images i'm getting are great.

[jeffde]

Have it and love it...

[unistudent1962]

I was in the same situation a few months ago. I'd had my eye on a 70-200 f2.8 IS and had been watching the prices, then along came the Version II and the price increase completely blew it out of my budget. On careful consideration I purchased a 70-200 f4 IS and am completely happy with the IQ and performance.

[SimiA]

i have one and agree with the comments here it almost never leaves my camera!

[eduard]

I would opt for an f4 IS instead if your budget is limited. It all depends of what you want to shoot, but the IS is a must for handheld

[Old Skool]

Anyone used a Sigma EX F2.8 70-200?? Without OS about $1000, with OS about $1500 so heaps cheaper than Canon. Is the Canon difference in price justified?

[ozimax]

I have owned 5 versions of the Canon 70-200 series. The 2.8 non IS is a stellar, world class lens. Grab it if you can afford it as the 2.8 aperture gives you that extra something, especially in portraits.

[Clubmanmc]

id agree, my 70-200 2.8 non IS is a fantastic unit, is a great all rounder...

and if you need IS then you need a tripod... :D

M

[radical]

To all the experts,

plz plz help me deciding which one to choose "EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM" IS or Non IS? or "EF 70-200mm f/2.0 L USM". These three fit my budget,

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens +3Yr Wty--AAJ5--- AU $1,401.01 @ebay (DigitalRev-AU)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 F4.0 L USM Lens+ 7Yr Int Wty-AAAF --- AU $758.16 @ebay (DigitalRev-AU)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 F4.0 L IS USM Lens+ 3Yr Int Wty-AAAF --- AU $1,289.29 @ebay (DigitalRev-AU)

Here is the link -- > http://stores.ebay.com.au/DigitalRev-AU-Photography-Shop/Canon-Lenses-/_i.html?_nkw=Canon+EF+70-200mm&submit=Search&LH_TitleDesc=1&_fsub=5752893&_sid=16435525

should i go for F/2.8 L (non IS) over F/4L IS or F/4L IS or non IS version.
I am a noob and i have never used a DSLR before planning to buy a Canon EOS 7D. Theoretically i have some basic knowledge about the lens terminology but i need hands on review on the above mentioned lenses.

As in i know what "IS" is and what aperture size means.... what i want to know... how it will effect the quality of an image and how huge is the difference? when it comes to IS vs Non IS & 2.8 VS 4.0


Thanks in advance.

[dulvariprestige]

I would opt for an f4 IS instead if your budget is limited. It all depends of what you want to shoot, but the IS is a must for handheld

Well not really, if you've got steady hands, or you shooting very high shutter speeds, IS isn't always necessary, but it can be nice.
This was taken hand held with a sigma 120-300 2.8 non IS, which is a pretty big heavy lens.

f5 1/125 @300mm

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5087612759_a88bf7efdf_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/5087612759/)
[/url][url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dulvariprestige/] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/5087612759/)