Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS or NO IS

subimatt

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
Location
Albany, NY
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I am planning on purchasing the 70-200 f2.8L when I pick up my 40D, The question is, Is it truly worth the $500 for the IS. I generally have a steady hand and do 95% of my shooting without a tripod. I have both a 28-105 non IS and a 28-135 IS lens and do not really notice the difference between the results. I have shot as slow as 1/20 without any problems hand held. However I can see with a zoom greater than 135, the IS would be useful, especially in the low light situations.
 
Personally, I would go for the IS. It does seem like a lot more to pay but you will most certainly find yourself in situations where you will be glad to have it...or wish that you did.

And yes, it does make a bigger difference on a telephoto. I wasn't really convinced of this until I used a 100-400 L IS.
 
Having IS is always a good option. If you can afford to splurge a little for it, go for it. If you plan on using the 1.4x TC later on, it is highly reccommended. Anything over 200mm will greatly benefit from IS.
 
I am a Nikon guy but I just went through the same decision you are. I opted for the VR (IS in Nikon verbiage) and think it is well worth the money. I have no regrets about spending the extra money, my shots come out much cleaner.
 
Thanks guys, I think I will play with both when I visit BH, I am thinking I will just splurge and go for the IS.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top