70-200mm f/2.8

[Hardrock]

I have the 2.8 IS version, now often being referred to as the Mark I. It's got good AF, and is pretty good wide-open. It's of course better stopped-down, but it's pretty good at 2.8. To me the IS version makes a lot of sense--the Image Stabilizer makes sharp shots much more likely in marginal situations.

I totally agree with the above. Although I do not shoot weddings and I rarely use the IS. The times I do use the IS I wouldnt have been able to get the shoot with out it (at 1/60th and 1/80th of a second at 200mm). You should be able to find this lens used for around $1400 to $1500 used. So you would save about $1000 compared to the new model. Sometimes I do wish it was a little sharper at 2.8.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Im saving money like crazy.. you cant believe it. Hopefully I dont die from eating ramen noodle everyday. I do miss going out to lunch with the boys at work!

 

[sovietdoc]

Telephoto lens without IS = useless.

 

[Derrel]

Im saving money like crazy.. you cant believe it. Hopefully I dont die from eating ramen noodle everyday. I do miss going out to lunch with the boys at work!

Dude,

Just don't drink all that excessively salty Ramen soup/water...eat the noodles, but pour that 1,300 milligrams of salt down the sink drain! Try adding some carrot slices to the Ramen while it's cooking. And if you like it, add a jumbo egg to the noodles and cook it for about 90 seconds near the end! Before you know it, you'll be the proud owner of a 70-200 L-IS !!!!!!!

 

[Blake.Oney]

I would recommend the IS. I've shot an outdoor weddings or two with my 55-200, and while these lenses do not compare my lens does not have IS. I can only use it for weddings outdoors because to ensure the shot isn't messed up I have to shoot at 1/200 or higher.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Personally I would love to have the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM but simply cant afford it right now. So its between the F/4 IS and the F/2.8 non-IS. The 2.8 is pretty heavy compared to the f/4 and you also get the up to 4 stops of IS.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Definately get the IS. Check craigslist. I picked mine up recently for $1400. It had the box and all paper work and was pristine. Wedding photog had a whole backup kit, this lens was used twice while his regular was in the shop getting cleaned. Now that the economy tanked, his business has gone down and he was selling off all of his "back up" kit. If you have never used one of these lenses, go rent one. Moving up from your 55-250 will be a huge leap and you will s**t a brick when you use the f/2.8 IS. Its that good. HAHA.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Oh, and not to open this debate, but unless you are going to spend well over $100 on a UV filter and ensure it has absolutely no image degradation, do not put one on this lens. The guy had a Mid level Tiffen UV filter and you can clearly see a difference just by holding it up to the lens and then removing, not even after uploading. You can see it through the viewfinder, thats how big the difference is.

 

[Robin Usagani]

trust me.. I check CL everyday. LOL

 

[tirediron]

Telephoto lens without IS = useless.

W. R. O. N. G.

Just plain wrong! Not as convenient, granted, but useless? A fellow photographer I know routinely shoots hand-held on a ship with a 400 2.8 and gets tack-sharp images. It's all about skill and the correct settings.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I assume even if you have parkinson's disease you will get sharp images with 1/500+ shutter speeds (assuming you have good lights).

Telephoto lens without IS = useless.

W. R. O. N. G.

Just plain wrong! Not as convenient, granted, but useless? A fellow photographer I know routinely shoots hand-held on a ship with a 400 2.8 and gets tack-sharp images. It's all about skill and the correct settings.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Telephoto lens without IS = useless.

W. R. O. N. G.

Just plain wrong! Not as convenient, granted, but useless? A fellow photographer I know routinely shoots hand-held on a ship with a 400 2.8 and gets tack-sharp images. It's all about skill and the correct settings.

I agree, I got some decent shots with my cheap as dirt Tamon 70-300. Of course it was outdoors in the daytime. IS is NOT required for a lens to be useful. For a wedding photographer, you are probably going to find yourself more often regretting not getting the IS than you will find yourself regretting spending more to get the IS.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Telephoto lens without IS = useless.

How you think they did it in the film days?