IS question

[asfixiate]

Canon 70-200 mm EF f/4 L USM Zoom Lens vs. Canon 70-200 mm f/4 L-Series IS USM Lens

The 2 differences I'm seeing is 1. $510 more for the IS version and 2. One is IS the other isn't.

I assume the IS version is better indoors than the non IS but with a good flash could the non IS version be a good buy or should I not be cheap and just get the IS one.

 

[JimmyO]

You need to ask yourself

Do i need it?
Can i afford it?

The advantage is you can use slower shutter speed, but you will still need fast shutter speed for shooting action shots.

And you should get a good flash anyways =)

 

[asfixiate]

The IS increases the shutter speed substantially?

My issues really are I can take some great photos with what I have now but I'm in the process of starting up a business within the next 3 years and during this 3 year period I hope to have a very good arsenal of equipment.

During this 3 year period I will have more powerful camera and hopefully good range of lenses(3 to cover all shots).

For now though I'm looking for what lenses I could add to my current setup so that I'm exposed to exactly what I will need. I'm looking at the below because they seem to be good medium level walk around lenses.

Canon 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM EF LensCanon 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens

Since I'm full time in my current career I can afford anything but with my wedding coming up in October I can't really get anything til than.

 

[Village Idiot]

The IS increases the shutter speed substantially?

My issues really are I can take some great photos with what I have now but I'm in the process of starting up a business within the next 3 years and I want to be sure I'm not using equipment that could be frowned upon.

IS just steadies the shot. So say you're shooting at 70mm, with IS off 1/70 would be the lowest shutter speed you wanted. With IS on, you could get probably 1/30 for an acceptable shutter speed with no camera chake.

Personally, IS on the f/4 isn't worth it. For about the same price you can get the f/2.8 which is almost as good as the f/4 with IS and has a faster aperture which = beautiful bokeh. The 70-200 f/2.8's are some of my favorite zoome lenses across the board....Canon, Nikon, whatever

 

[Big Mike]

IS just steadies the shot. So say you're shooting at 70mm, with IS off 1/70 would be the lowest shutter speed you wanted. With IS on, you could get probably 1/30 for an acceptable shutter speed with no camera chake.

That's only one stop. I believe Canon says it can gain you 3 to 4 stops, but it's more likely 2 to 3. So shooting at 70mm, you might expect to get sharp shots at 1/15 or 1/8.

It should be mentioned, that IS will help to reduce or eliminate blur from camera shake...but it does nothing to stop blur from subject movement. So if you are shooting at 1/15...it's likely that a person might appear blurry because it's hard to stand perfectly still.

That being said, having IS is better than not having IS.

Since you plan to get a business going...I would suggest the 70-200 F2.8 L IS. It's a lot more expensive...but you won't want to upgrade...like you will if you buy a lesser lens.

 

[asfixiate]

I'm definitely going to consider the 70-200 F2.8 L IS since liek you said I wouldn't have to upgrade and with it being purchased for my business I'd be able to claim it as an asset. Would you say this is a must have type of lense? The 3 years I'm referring to is basically to get to an acceptable level of ability as well as slowly upgrade to around 10k worth of camera equipment (hopefully can include lighting etc)

As of right now though I want to have decent equpment that will allow for me to learn what I need to know to use that equipment to its full ability. Will either of the below lenses give me decent results as decent walk around lenses?

Canon 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM EF Lens
Canon 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens

 

[Village Idiot]

If I had a 5d instead of a 30d, it probably would never leave my camera

 

[asfixiate]

"If I had a 5d instead of a 30d, it probably would never leave my camera"

you're referring to the 70-200 F2.8 L IS right?

 

[Village Idiot]

"If I had a 5d instead of a 30d, it probably would never leave my camera"

you're referring to the 70-200 F2.8 L IS right?

:thumbup:

 

[250Gimp]

I have the 28-135 IS lense and it is a pretty good walk around lense for me, but if you like to shoot landscapes you may find it too wide on a crop sensor. It is also an older version of IS, so you have to turn it off manually when on a tripod, and it only helps by a couple stops. Still a good lense if the focal range works for you.

The 70-200 will give better pictures, as it is an 'L' lense. the 2.8 lense is more for sports and indoor photography. The f4 is a great lense too, in the right situation and it has a newer IS than the f2.8.

You need to decide what you are going to use the lense for to make the best decision.

For my 2 cents, I would get the f2.8 if I could afford it, but I hear the f4 is actually shaper than the f2.8.

Confused yet??

 

[RyanLilly]

For my 2 cents, I would get the f2.8 if I could afford it, but I hear the f4 is actually shaper than the f2.8.

Confused yet??

I think I read this also, but considering the Canon 70-200 is about the sharpest zoom ever made, I wouldn't worry about it. I would get the 2.8, just because some day(probably sooner than later) you will be in a situation where you regret not having that extra stop of light.

 

[asfixiate]

If I got the 70-200 F2.8 L IS it would become one of my primary lenses used.

 

[Village Idiot]

Actually, the 2.8 and 4 are so close wide open, it's going to be a crap shoot on what day the lens was made. The 2.8 IS is a little softer, but you're getting a 2.8 constant aperture on a telephoto zoom with IS.

Smart sharpen is your friend.

 

[asfixiate]

What's the deal with tamron lenses. Are they great lenses? I'm looking at
SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD and just curious how it rates in comparison..to the Canon 70-200 f 2.8l

 

[Big Mike]

That is a new lens, I haven't hard much about it...or even how much it would cost.

Sigma has had a 70-200mm F2.8 for a long time, which I believe has been updated recently.

The usual answer for the Sigma/Tamron vs Canon is that the Canon is better but a lot more expensive. The trick is trying to figure out just how much better the Canon is, and trying to decide if the extra cost is worth it to you. For some people and many pros, the quality is always top of the list, so they use the expensive gear.

I would assume that these 70-200mm lenses are pretty good. Probably good enough for most people's uses. But the Canon models are top of the line...and having top of the line means never wanting to upgrade.