Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8L USM Non IS?

[GreenSlime89]

Does such a lens exist and if so, is it still in production and worth buying?

I was thinking about the 70-200mm F/4L USM but I wonder if the F/2.8 would be better for teleconverters and such but I don't have the money to pay through the nose for IS. So can anyone tell me if they exist and are worth the money?

 

[darich]

Well B & H still sell it

I've owned one since new around 2 years ago and it's a great lens. being able to use f2.8 at 200mm is amazing and with the long zoom it really makes your subject stand out from the background because at that focal length the depth of field is pretty narrow.

It's well worth buying if you're in the market for a lens of that type and with the wide aperture I've never missed not having IS.
Sure it would be good to have it but i've never missed a shot through not having it.

one thing to consider with teleconverters - images are only as good as your worst piece of glass.
I use dto own a TC but when using it with my Canon 20D and 70-200 lens the images lost a bit of sharpness and clarity. Using a £65 tc between a £800 and a £1000 lens just ruined things. So decided to sell it.
IF you do get a TC make sure it's as high a quality one as possible.
With L lenses you'll see other a TC dragging your gear down to that level.

But as for the lens itself, it's awesome. Make sure you get a carry case and hood with it - it's part of the package.

 

[GreenSlime89]

What if I were to use canon's own teleconverters? Would they be any better?

 

[darich]

I'm not sure.
The TC i used was a Jessops own brand and cost me £65 in the mid 90s.
Once i sold it i never bought another and I've not tried any other brands.

 

[TomHuck-wa]

I carry my 20D with the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the Canon 2x teleconverter as standard, hardly ever remove that setup. I have sold several pictures taken with it set up on a tripod. I have a problem handholding it well enough to take saleable pictures (although they are good enough for family albums.) I have another 20D that is my change lenses camera.I cannot say enough good things about the lens with the doubler. Oh yea you should turn off the IS if you mount on a tripod, so you could get the one without IS and save 500 or so dollars.

 

[Big Mike]

Image quality shouldn't be an issue with that lens and a Canon teleconverter...it will still be very good.

I would suggest saving a bit more and getting the IS version...if you don't, you will, sooner or later, wish you had.

 

[Seefutlung]

A while ago I checked out www.photozone.de an independant lab testing of lenses and the Canon 70-200 2.8 Non-Is was just a bit sharper than the IS (not significantly sharper.)

Remember that IS won't stop action. As most of what I shoot is of moving subjects, the IS, although at times handy, would be of no help at all. IS is great on static subjects, is of no use on action (except for the odd pan or two.)

I have a friend who uses the 70-200 2.8 and a 2X with good results .. but, the big but, he has to stop it down to about f/8.

Gary

 

[Big Mike]

Remember that IS won't stop action. As most of what I shoot is of moving subjects, the IS, although at times handy, would be of no help at all. IS is great on static subjects, is of no use on action (except for the odd pan or two.)

That's correct...IS will not help to freeze a moving subject...only a faster shutter speed will do that. However, any extra stability while hand holding won't hurt. You may be in a situation where 1/60 will be adequate for the subject...but it's just too long to be hand holding a 200mm lens. IS will help in that situation.

I recently had the opportunity to use a 100-400 L IS lens...and the IS was a god-send.

On the topic of TCs...I know a guy who uses a 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS, with a 1.4X TC...and a 2X TC...ALL AT ONCE. This does make it immposible for AF to work...but the image quality isn't nearly as bad as you would think.

 

[GreenSlime89]

I know I should follow your advice but I could get a Macro lens with the difference or half of the money for the 24-70mm F/2.8L USM with the difference. I was considering the non-IS version of the F/4 but decided I could try the F/2.8 without IS for only £400 or so more. I'm really wanting to get this as soon as possible and I'm working in an opticians making £15 for a half day on Saturdays but I have a £15 a month phone contract. So that extra £350 would take me at least another 3 months. I've been desperately wanting a good telephoto for over a year but I've only just started work. I've gathered just over £400 over the holidays so far but I've got to recover money I've spent on cameras and my last holiday before I can save for a lens. I've got £200 more to gather before I can start saving. You can see that this lens is currently a distant dream.

Does anyone know how reliable cameraking.co.uk are?

 

[Seefutlung]

As a former professional photographer (photo journalist), the 70-200 2.8 is one hell of a lens. You should be very very happy with the optics. Additionally, a $150 tripod is superior to $600 of IS (just that IS is a bit more handy.)

Gary