Hi I am about to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 USM lens. But it comes in 2 versions, with and without the image stabilizer. Can anyone tell me which one I should get, is there any downsides to the IS lens? Besides the higher price of course. Also I am going to get the extender for it, but will the 2x extender be good or should I settle for the 1.4x Hope someone can help me out
* IS = image stabilizer. Not end-all-solution for camera shake BUT sure nice to have * Because of the extra glass and IS stuff, the IS version is heavier Outstanding IQ but I HATED the weight and bulk. Sold mine. If that is no concern.. spend the money and get the IS version. 2x extender is ok... 1.4x is a good performer.
I'd say image stabilization is definetely the way to go if you don't mind the bulk. I've been putting some thought into it, and you still need to keep the shutter speeds above 1/200th (at 200mm) of a second with a non-IS lens. At f2.8, while better than cheaper zooms, you still need a bit of light or a pretty high ISO. I'm still going to get a non-stabilized lens because I'm broke, but I'll still be saving for the nikon version of the lens you mentioned. Just some food for thought, if you can afford it and don't mind the weight, you should probably go IS.
When you say extender, I'm assuming the teleconverter (optical glass) versus extension tubes. I have a 1.7 Nikkor teleconverter and it drops max aperture from f/4 on my 300mm to f/6.7 and from f/2.8 to f/4.8 on my 70-200mm. A 2x TC will reduce light even further. Here's my latest example of the 300mm w/ 1.7 TC.
Thanks for the advice guys, appreciate it. I decided on getting the IS, also got the 2x entender since I am going on a Safari soon, and just placed the order, cant wait to get my new toy
Just FYI... 70-200 f2.8L IS with 2x extender will work with center AF point only. Nothing big.. to worry about.
