70-200mm f/2.8

[Robin Usagani]

Hey, do you think the IS is a must have for a wedding photographer? How good is the AF on this thing on low light? Is it pretty sharp when shot wide open? Thinking about buying one and not sure whether I should get the non IS, or IS version (mk 1 or 2).

 

[ghache]

if you have the money, dont think twice.

 

[MohaimenK]

Dude are you seroius?!?!? YES IS is IMPORTANT! If you're doing wedding photography don't think twice bout it! If you're doing stuff w/ tripods/monopods for landscape work, sure go for it. But not for weddings. And there are improvements from old model vs the MK 2. Spend money once and be hapy with it. When you start doing weddings, you'll be happy and realize you made a good investment.

 

[Robin Usagani]

But I am not shaky like you Mo? LOL JK

 

[MohaimenK]

Ok cool go buy the non-is version then cry later w/ your stealth skillz sucka! ldman:

You're gonna come back and say "Mo I should have listened to you"

 

[Neil S.]

Ya Schwetty, you def. want to get an IS version.

At 200mm you need some pretty fast shutter speeds to counter the hand shake you will get with the non-IS.

Keep in mind that the mk I is 2 stops, and the mk II is 4 stops if I remember correctly.

I know we were talking before about you getting a 5D mk II.

Take my word for it that the 70-200 2.8 IS II will blow you away, I would get it over a new body if I were you. Even on your camera the shots would be outstanding.

It would probably last you a long time without really needing to upgrade, its that damn good. The same cant be said of a body.

 

[Robin Usagani]

how much was the mk1 when it was new Neil? I want to see how much the price has dropped (if I see how much they are selling for on ebay).

 

[Big Mike]

The mk I 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, is still available new, at a price of $1700. I think the new mk II version is something like $2400.

The price of the mk I actually went up in the last few years, as I bought it new for $1600 and change.

 

[Neil S.]

how much was the mk1 when it was new Neil? I want to see how much the price has dropped (if I see how much they are selling for on ebay).

I am not sure.

Im pretty sure it dropped quite a bit though.

You would be happy with the mk I, but honestly I would just get the mk II as long as you could afford it.

I was in the same boat, and thats what I did. My mk II is the 1st 70-200 I have ever owned.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I just want to know how much the value will hold up in a few years.

 

[Neil S.]

I just want to know how much the value will hold up in a few years.

Well according to Big Mike the price actually has gone up over the years.

I have heard that Canon lenses hold their value very well. As to the specifics of this, I am not really sure.

 

[Overread]

Prices have only gone up on the M1 because:

1) The $ and £ have weakened against the Yen in recent years so things from Japan have been costing more at the base amount

2) The Mk1 is no longer in production, which sky rocketed the price of the Mk1 as shops ran out of stock and also increased the second hand price of the lens.

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[bigtwinky]

Did you not read and post in that thread with the dude who had the 70-200 f/4? Did you see how everyone was telling him to get the 2.8 IS?

If you are doing a wedding, which means you are responsible for beautifully documenting a couple's love story on a very special day, with no chance for a do-over, then you need to ensure you have the best equipment you can to help you do that...

2.8 IS. end of story

It is sharp. It focuses fast. The IS works well. You will look cool.

 

[prodigy2k7]

The non IS versions are not weather sealed, if that matters for you.