Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS, is it worth it?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by nagoshua, Dec 30, 2007.

  1. nagoshua

    nagoshua TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Im looking at buying a new lens after my next paycheck. I need it around the focal lengths of 70-200mm. I am looking to save as much as i can but im not sure if i should just go with the tried and tested canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS but with cheapest one on ebay going for £900 its a lot of money to spend when im like uber poor. How much difference will the IS make to my pictures when hand holding and would it be more value for money to just stick the ISO up a few notches because the non stabilized one is a lot cheaper.

    Also, any other alternatives people can think of and maybe some opinions from people that own these lenses... I would love to have that lovely piece of white glass weighing down my camera but im willing to do without!

    Does anyone have the sigma 50-500mm... seems too good to be true!
     
  2. Sideburns

    Sideburns TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Actually, the 70-200 really IS worth it.... (ahaha..get it?)

    The Sigma 50-500 is not in the same league as the Canon. It's got long reach, but starts to get a little difficult to hand hold at the long end. Image quality is not as high, and zoom creep is so obvious, they may as well call it zoom sprint.

    Getting the 70-200 without IS is an option...but if you're gonna be spending that much already...I would just go for the IS. It's really a nice thing to have.
     
  3. FidelCastrovich

    FidelCastrovich TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Israel
    No one can answer this question for you. Objectively, on a cosmic level - the IS is a superb feature.
    You have to ask yourself whether or not you'll be shooting enough in low light, to justify the extra $$$.

    Just remember that people have been shooting with tele lenses for decades, before the invention of the IS. And remember that the IS version of that lens is a beast, and might not be fun to lug around.

    How about the F4 IS? I believe its cost is close to that of the regular f2.8. Again, you have to assess your needs.
     
  4. nagoshua

    nagoshua TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i have read in reviews that the f4 doesn't have the quality that the f2.8 does but still... im sure its amazing. I was considering it but im gonna be adding teleconverters for a bit of extra reach so i dont really think the f4 will be an option.
     
  5. Txaggie08

    Txaggie08 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I just nabbed a non-is version for 800$ used(that would be 400pounds for you....). I've learned to shoot sans the IS because the person who has taught me, and the lenses I learned with, where sigmas...
     
  6. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,821
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The thing about this lens, is that it's the best option in this range. For many pros, it's the best tool for the job, so the cost is worth it.

    It is expensive though. If budget is a limitation...then the other 70-200 lenses are also pretty good. The 70-200 F4 L (non IS) is pretty affordable in comparison and the sharpness is said to be as good (some say better) than the F2.8.

    Of course, there is the F4 version with IS, and the F2.8 without IS...both of which are less expensive than the lens in question.

    I don't know about the Sigma 50-150mm...but I've heard good things about the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.
     
  7. sabbath999

    sabbath999 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I do. I shoot Nikon, but the lens is the same as the Canon one.

    The L glass is better. The 50-500 is what it is, a long reach lens with a 10X zoom. The zoom range is huge, which is both very cool and tells you that image quality is going to suffer somewhat.

    Creep? Bah, people whine about creep all the time. The 50-500 doesn't creep, it RUNS out to the full range. You get used to it, no big deal.

    Unless you NEED a 500mm lens for under $1K, buy something else.
     
  8. astrostu

    astrostu Guest

    How many extra stops is the IS supposed to add? 3? I'll be facing the same decision in June '08 and I can generally shoot 1/40 (sometimes 1/30, sometimes 1/50) hand-held without noticeable camera shake. So that would let me shoot around 1/20- or 1/15-sec?
     
  9. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    I don't think you are making a good comparison. Asking if you should get the 50-500 instead of the 70-200 is apples to oranges. Both lenses have their uses but one is DEFINATELY better than the other. I have the Nikon version of the 70-200IS 2.8 and it is the nicest lens I have ever owned. If I had the need for alot longer reach affordably I might consider the "BIGMA" but all I needed was 200. Also, the only reason to get the f/4 is bcause you cannot afford the 2.8.
     
  10. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The stops that IS adds is more for hand-holdabiblity than actual speed that a larger aperature provides. Maybe 1/30th with good technique and a sturdy fence. If you need the larger f/2.8 aperature than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the way to go. It is a superb lens and probably the best in its class. The f/4 non-IS is actually sharper, but does lack the larger aperature and IS. If you do not need those two features, it is a great option. Can be had for around $550 USD.
     
  11. Brotage

    Brotage TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've been looking at all of them too So far I think my best choice is the f/4L IS, People complain about the f/2.8 being too heavy, it's 3.5 lbs. I wouldn't want to be holding for very long. the f/4L is 1.7 lbs and is supposed to be sharper than the f/2.8 (atleast from the reviews i've read)
     
  12. nagoshua

    nagoshua TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i know lol, but im planning on buying a teleconvertor to increase the reach of the lens, i was just thinking it might be worth the money to buy the sigma, but obviously not. Ive come to the conclusion that its gonna have to be one of the f2.8, so its just a matter of how much cash i can part with, thanks a lot guys!!
     

Share This Page