I'm trying to decide which 70-200 canon lens I want, my fiancee is pretty damn awesome and seems like she wants to get me one as a wedding present.

I'm currently leaning away from the f/4 options to the f/2.8, but I don't know if I want to go for the IS version or not. Price difference on what I'm seeing is roughly $600 or so to upgrade. Another option would be the f/4 IS, but I think I'd like the speed of the 2.8 since I've heard the images look best one stop down on most lenses.

I'm not familiar with using IS and if it would be useful. My typical uses are going to be shooting stuff like rally, outdoors, sports. I usually shoot hand held but could justify a monopod since it definitely is cheaper than the IS upgrade to the f/2.8.

Just seeing what you guys think, thanks in advance.

OK, here's the deal. If you're going to be shooting at or above 1/250th most of the time, IS really won't help much. It's there to keep lens shake out of your images, but that's not an issue at or above 1/FL of the lens... So bear that in mind. I shoot mostley sports with mine so I went with the non IS f/2.8 (sigma EX DG) version. I love it.

Also, there are some people who say that IS takes a bit of the IQ away from that lens. IT IS AN EXTRA ELEMENT THAT THE LIGHT MUST GO THROUGH, but it's still wickedly sharp... But maybe the non IS f/2.8 is a tad sharper??? Not sure, but I've seen VERY SHARP images from both lenses...

So first decide if you will be using this with fast shutter speeds. If you are IS is overkill (expensive). Second decide if you want/need f/2.8. Both to get faster shutter speeds and or to get shallow DOF... Now with the 4 versions there is a lens for each reason... Answer those 2 questions and buy accordingly. Also consider the size/weight of the lens because it does you no good if you won't take it with you...

If I win the lottery I will get the f/2.8 IS to replace my EX DG. I love my EX DG and I primarily shoot at high shutter speeds. Sometimes I use it for landscape/scenic type stuff and for that it's on the tripod. But the fact remains that there have been a few times when I'm shooting where a tripod is not an option (on a boat) and it's late enough 1/250th+ is a stretch so IS would have been nice.

$.02
YMMV
Ben

I think most of the time I'll be shooting at faster shutter speeds. I'm thinking for the extra $600 I don't need the IS as it won't be something I need 95+% of the time.

The sigma is a good option, is there a general consensus that the canon is better glass? I have looked around the canon digital forums and haven't found a great direct comparison yet.

I'll have to borrow and try out my friends 70-200 f/2.8 this next weekend for a bit and shoot around with it. I'll be at Ojibwe ProRally so there should be stuff to shoot provided I'm not too busy with codriving at the time.

Is there a rental place nearby?

Trying renting it for the weekend to get first person experience.

IS is up to you really. If you think you're going to use it for a lot of hand held shooting then it's often an incredibly useful tool. It does however tend to be unnecessary if you shoot on a tripod, also if you shoot under a lot of backlit conditions or other tricky situations it can potentially lead to more lens flare due to the more complicated lens design as a result of the extra elements.

Im also in the same boat, deciding between the IS and non IS version of the 70-200mm F2.8L. I generally have a steady hand and do 95% of my shooting without a tripod. I have both a 28-105 non IS and a 28-135 IS lens and do not really notice the difference between the results. I have shot as slow as 1/20 without any problems hand held. However I can see where a zoom greater than 135, the IS would be useful, especially in the low light situations. I guess I would really like to know if the IS is worth the $500.

The real questions is what shutter speeds will you be using this lens for?

If you're shooting sports, typically the shutter speeds are high enough to freeze the action that they also eliminate blur... But if you're shooting portraits with it, and don't care about shutter speeds than why not? If you can afford it I'd say go for it. You can always return it or sell it for buko bucks. They hold their resale really well.

For what it's worth, I may be putting up my f4 version up for sale so I can upgrade to the f2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but more often than not I'm lusting after the extra stop of f2.8. And at that point I'm thinking I may as well get the IS.

f/2.8 IS or on your trip a month sooner?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

f/2.8 IS or on your trip a month sooner?

No kidding! One of my biggest hurdles is going to be the decision of taking all my photo gear or going the more sensible route and getting a badass P&S.

5D
uwa
standard zoom
tele
1.4tc

the problem with a p&s is the widest even with accessory lenses is what 24mm?

don't want to muddle up this thread with ot banter. See my latest post in my "ride the world thread"

I have pretty much decided on how I want to go - I want the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.

Now, since I'm not sure, and may want to upgrade in the future to IS, and don't think there will be a humongous difference, I'm also looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG. At $250 cheaper I think its worth a look considering it has pretty similar performance from all the comparisons I've found on PoTN, plus I kind of like the fact that its painted black instead of the "look at me white".

Agreed on all points.
I love mine.

I think when I take a drive down to B&H, I will play with them both. But I am leaning towards the IS at the moment. Thanks for the feedback.

don't go in there with any more money than you can afford to spend...

my experience with the IS, is that it is pointless to me. in low light situations, my shutter would be slow enough to require a tripod anyways.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

don't go in there with any more money than you can afford to spend...

I know, the first time I went I was blown away and ready to empty my bank account... This is why my wife goes with me...

The biggest difference for me in my f/4IS vs. my old sigma is the weight and the IS. If I was going from the f/4 non-IS to the f/2.8 of the sigma, I'd only be concerned about weight. I haven't noticed a ton in day to day iq.

both are very good in terms of IQ, but the canon is sharper if you're going to peep. If your canon has IS, I'd probably keep it unless you've struggled for shutter speed with f/4, but that fact you're asking the question hints you haven't seen any of the limits of that lens yet, so I'd vote the f4. The 2.8s great IF you need 2.8, but if not it's extra weight.

Honestly though, anything you use/print I doubt you'd tell a difference in the iq. I've got 12x18's from my 40d from both and they're both great.