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

nagoshua · Dec 30, 2007

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!

Sideburns · Dec 30, 2007

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.

FidelCastrovich · Dec 30, 2007

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.

nagoshua · Dec 30, 2007

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.

Txaggie08 · Dec 30, 2007

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...

Big Mike · Dec 30, 2007

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.

sabbath999 · Dec 30, 2007

nagoshua said:
Does anyone have the sigma 50-500mm... seems too good to be true!

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.

astrostu · Dec 30, 2007

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?

JIP · Dec 30, 2007

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.

soylentgreen · Dec 30, 2007

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.

Brotage · Dec 30, 2007

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)

nagoshua · Dec 31, 2007

JIP said:
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.

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!!

FidelCastrovich · Dec 31, 2007

nagoshua said:
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!!

If you need extra reach, check out the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. I've read good things about it.

table1349 · Dec 31, 2007

nagoshua said:
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.

Depends on what you mean by quality. The f4 non IS is probably the sharpest of the 4 70-200 Canon options. This is closely followed by the 70-200 f2.8. The IS options come in 3rd in sharpness rating, but you really have to pixel peep to see the difference between any of them.

Build quality of the 2.8 series feels superior to the f4 series. I started with the 70-200 f4 and traded up to the f2.8 as I needed the low light capabilities for sports.

An option that you might want to consider if you don't have to have IS it the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Around $900 here in the states and from the copy I shot it is a very good competetor to the Canon version. The only thing that takes a bit of getting used to is the Sigma zoom ring turns opposite of the Canon.