Need help with the decision to purchase Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS

[CATinHAWAII]

The bigger question is why wouldn't you want IS on a lens? I yurn for the day I see IS built into the 24-70L and IS is always helpful no matter what the situation is. When you're dealing with outdoor portraits where you've got time a tripod might make sense but still thats one extra thing to distract you and weigh you down when moving around. It distracts you from capturing that funny outake of someone laughing and getting different angles easily.

Honestly as much as I love tripods nothing replaces IS for having that 2-3 stop advantage and still getting a usable shot while mobile, focusing on the subject and their personality.

other rumor site says that the 24-70 IS is on the way, probably by the end of the year... ,,, of course i knew this , and still got the 24-70 last month, cause i wanted it, stretched to pay for it,,, and really didnt want to pay an extra 500-600 for the IS version,,, maybe ill try it out at the dealer later,,,

oh well...

 

[Kebabselector]

IS is always helpful no matter what the situation is.

Well apart from moving targets of course, then panning is a better technique.

 

[jampat]

IS mode II helps with panning too. It compensates for the movement of the camera perpendicular to the pan.

 

[iHateMacs]

People worry about used equipment. But I'll tell you that every new lens I bought is now a used lens. The "newness" is gone when you open the box. Hardly worth it to pay extra for something that vanishes so fast.

What rubbish. If it's not NEW then it's USED. Not knowing HOW it was used is the reason to buy new. You have no idea how equipment has been treated by the previous owner. Your lenses might be 20 years old but you would know that they have been treated with respect from day one. Could you know that about another's lens?


Anyway back to the topic. I have the 2.8L IS version of this and it's still my favorite lens. I bought it few years back on my first EOS, a 20D. The wide end on the 20D was not great but since moving to full frame I am using it as intended.

Weight DOES become a problem when you are holding it attached to a 1DsII all day. My right elbow was hurting for a week. But, you have to make sacrifices to get quality.

 

[aquajet]

What rubbish. If it's not NEW then it's USED. Not knowing HOW it was used is the reason to buy new. You have no idea how equipment has been treated by the previous owner. Your lenses might be 20 years old but you would know that they have been treated with respect from day one. Could you know that about another's lens?

Of course one can have an idea. Simply looking at the equipment and evaluating its cosmetic condition can give you an idea of how the equipment was treated. This ought to be pretty obvious to most people.

 

[Col127]

wow, great shots. i'm on the fence debating b/w the 2.8 and the 4 IS myself right now purely on the weight difference.

Thanks for bumping the topic guys, I appreciate all your replies. I have no idea why my photos were deleted (!) not only from here, but also from the "Photo of the day - August 2008" thread, indeed strange. I will post some new ones here though, so no worries


Col127, tonie
I don't mind the weight at all now, of course I am not able to continually hand-hold it but I quickly "recharge" bracing it against my knee or arm and then I am ready for using it again

pprior, digitalfrog, nutmac
Since I have already bought the 2.8L IS, I must say I have no regrets about it. I know that according to tests and numbers the 4L IS is slightly sharper. But, for me the 2.8 aperture makes taking pictures possible indoors. Plus, it really separates the subject from the background - so it was worth it for me to overpay. I DID take some test shoots with the 70-200 4L IS just before deciding to hand over the 600$ on top of it for the 2.8L. The first couple pictures indoors (in store lighting) made me understand that without having a tripod there is no way that the 4L is going to make a shoot as good as 2.8L did under the same conditions. The portrait I took of another customer was at f/4.0 and 1/40 shutter speed, which even with IS enabled made the picture not as nice as on f/2.8 and 1/60 speed. Plus, the 2.8L version autofocuses much faster under inferior light conditions.

jampat
The tripod mount is great, but I still haven't bought a decent tripod to go with it, so that will be my next purchase

ChrisA, wheezy
I think that you are right, but for me the 70-200 cannot be replaced by one prime lens, for the telephoto needs. I think that journalists MUST have the ability to quickly zoom in/out, as there is not enough time or space to move back/forth physically. But, now I am thinking about buying the Canon 35mm 1.4L lens, to satisfy my "prime" quality needs as well as have a relatively "wide" angle on my crop Canon 450D (Xsi).
The 135mm 2L is really a nice lens, from what I have heard- but now owing the 2.8L zoom, I think it would be silly for me to get it, unless money is burning my pocket, which it doesn't

MacNoobie
Yes, I have already got the 70-200mm 2.8IS USM one, and I agree that if you ever plan on using the 2.8 aperture, it is a no-brainer. However for some, they always shoot in better light conditions, so the choice of 4L is appropriate as well.


The Photos I have taken recently:

Who knows what bird is it?

A squirrel just outside my house:

My sister's cat, or lioness should I say

 

[Bokser]

Thanks for the commentary

As for the weight - I, personally, have no regrets It's not even that heavy anymore, but it does add to confidence in shooting

 

[Col127]

hmmmm.. very tempting i guess your hands get used to the weight?

i used to find the 40d really heavy for my hands... now i think it's light

Thanks for the commentary

As for the weight - I, personally, have no regrets It's not even that heavy anymore, but it does add to confidence in shooting