Canon 70-200mm L non-IS vs. 70-200mm L with-IS

Tokyudo · Dec 21, 2008

Canon 70-200mm L non-IS vs. 70-200mm L with-IS

I just ordered a Canon 50D. One of my next purchases is the Canon 70-200mm L.

For those who have used both versions of this great lens, is the IS worth the difference in cost?

table1349 · Dec 21, 2008

It all depends if you are going to use it or not. I shoot a lot of sports, detest weddings so I avoid shooting them like the plague. IS is virtually worthless for sports or any type photography involving the movement of the subjects. IS is valuable in low light where it the hand shake that is the problem with slow shutter speeds.

For me the cost of IS was a waste, because of what I shoot and how I shoot. All of my lenses have external IS when needed. Spelled Tripod. If your style of shooting includes a lot of low light stuff and you don't want to be bothered with a tripod then IS is probably for you. Otherwise, $500.00 can go a long way to another quality piece of glass.

usayit · Dec 21, 2008

Gryph is right...

Got the money, then IS is good to have.
Don't have the money, then be happy.. it is a wonderful lens.

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I did find the IS a very useful feature.

Tokyudo · Dec 21, 2008

Low light situations is all I'm going to be shooting.

I shoot a lot of Mix Martial Arts events and the venues typically have poor lighting. Lots of Tungstein lights too.

table1349 · Dec 21, 2008

Tokyudo said:
Low light situations is all I'm going to be shooting.

I shoot a lot of Mix Martial Arts events and the venues typically have poor lighting. Lots of Tungstein lights too.

Well like I said before, if it is action related then IS is not going to help. f2.8 and high ISO can get you where you need to be, but IS will not do a thing for you as you need to have a minimum of 1/250th to stop the action.

astrostu · Dec 21, 2008

Another thing to consider is what you may be shooting in the future. For example, you could buy the non-IS now, decide in a few years you need the IS, sell the non-IS for maybe 70-80% what you paid for it, and then buy the IS.

Or you could just buy the IS up-front now if you have the money.

johngpt · Jan 2, 2009

I got the IS version because I could afford it, and for future needs. I've had it since late August, primarily shooting night soccer. I haven't yet turned on the IS feature. With my 40D and ISO 1600 or 3200, f2.8 or 3.2 has done well.

soylentgreen · Jan 2, 2009

The lens is a tad heavy, so the IS definitely helps with hand held shots.

Ls3D · Jan 2, 2009

I really like the IS when needed, feeling that baby vibrate in my hand, it is like magic every time.

BTW - I hear the IS adds some glass and is probably just very slightly less sharp than the non IS version. Along those lines;

Maybe consider a few prime lenses? They may require some foot work, but the clarity and IQ is addicting. Another advantage is the light weight and reduced cost... you can even click pass the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200, getting into some darn fast glass.

-Shea

keith204 · Jan 3, 2009

The IS version comes with a big cup of "ahhhh, no more upgrades..."

Txaggie08 · Jan 4, 2009

I've never had issues with my non-is lens and camera shake. Most of the time what I'm shooting isn't moving, and if it's blurry from me shaking it was blurry three stops before hand from motion.....

That being said, I have a background in paintball for nearly 13 years. I hold my camera in a slightly different way than most people do, more like a marker tucked in using my elbows. I've had very good luck with keeping a camera steady with even slower non IS lenses....

Iron Flatline · Jan 4, 2009

The lens is long and heavy, so after a few hours the IS compensates nicely for a weakening arms. It may not freeze the action when shooting sports or dancers in lower light, but it helps get a better shot. Let's say you're at f/2.8, and need to be at 1/60th of a sec... well, a person flying through the air will still blur... but the background will be nice and solid, because at least the frame is steadier than it might be without IS.

FidelCastrovich · Jan 4, 2009

IS is great. No doubt about it.
It's just another tool. You don't NEED it, true. But It helps you get some shots that you wouldn't otherwise get.
Regarding the cost - only you know if it is worth it. For me, there were no two ways about it - IS all the way. I turn it on from 1/125 downwards and the keeper rate goes up dramatically.
It's like having a useable ISO 6400 - you don't need it most of the time. And even when you do, there are ways to work around it. But if you have the option, it opens new doors. Whether or not you need to have it, only you can answer that.

johngpt · Jan 4, 2009

soylentgreen said:
The lens is a tad heavy, so the IS definitely helps with hand held shots.

I'm getting stronger over the months I've had it, but still use positioning to help. I move around too much to use a monopod, so here's my preferred position. Left elbow resting on raised left knee.

Big Mike · Jan 5, 2009

The IS version comes with a big cup of "ahhhh, no more upgrades..."

Good point Keith.

For me, I knew that I would certainly make use of it but I certainly knew that if I went with a cheaper option (non-IS or maybe the F4 version)...there would come a time when I wished I had not 'cheeped out' and got the best lens...and that time would probably come fairly often. Sure, I could make due without IS...but it would always be in the back of my mind that I could have done better if I had the best tool for the job.