Talk Me Out of the 70-200 2.8 IS

[HughGuessWho]

Have you concidered the 2.8L NON IS version? Have fast lens, but for conciderable less money. I have that lens and can say I dont regret buying the NON-IS version. I love it.

Do you really not miss the IS? It almost doubles the price... Do you have to rely on a tripod during lower light situations?

I really do not miss the IS at all.

Here are a few photos that I took, hand held, with a 2X teleconverter. See for yourself.

 

[kathyt]

If you can afford it, buy it. It is an excellent lens. If you are going to vomit after you make the purchase, then go for the non-is version and save yourself some cash. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy professional gear, you just have to be able to justify the purchase.

 

[Overread]

If you can afford it, buy it. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy professional gear, you just have to be able to justify the purchase.

Heck just to add a story to that I started with a 400D (after NEVER owning or using a camera before) and less than 6 months later bought a 70-200mm f2.8 and 150mm f2.8 macro and flash - massive cost! I wasn't a pro, I was heck only just really learning how to use the camera and get out of the scene modes - but at the time I had the money - I had the justification - I had the bug - and honestly my spending the money left no dependants upon me to suffer so -- I did it. And since then never ever regretted it

 

[MLCIII]

@Iolair- Longest is my 85 1.8 which I find woefully short in many applications. I snapped a few with the 4.0 IS in the store thinking I'd like the compactness, and I handled the 2.8 mkII, though I didn't try it out on my body. I don't know that I'd mind the weight. It's heavier but not so bad.

@Derrel, thanks for your input. I think I've made my mind up about getting the 2.8. The question now is to IS or not to IS. I might be interested in a 2.0 tc down the road, surely the IS will come in handy at 400mm? This is the longest lens I think I'll ever buy. So I have to do it right.

And I definitely carry insurance on my gear (as should everyone)... I can only afford to buy this stuff once!

 

[MLCIII]

If you can afford it, buy it. It is an excellent lens. If you are going to vomit after you make the purchase, then go for the non-is version and save yourself some cash. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy professional gear, you just have to be able to justify the purchase.

Haha thanks, Kathy. It's a great way to look at it. This thread should've been called "How to Talk My Wife Into Letting Me Spend Two Grand".

 

[Overread]

If you want to use a 2*TC the only 70-200mm (for canon) I'd advise you get is the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII - sadly also the most expensive. I had the original version of this lens (the mark 1 that is now out of production - still a very good lens of course) and the 2*TC and used the TC maybe two or three times over the whole time that I owned and used it. It works, functionally, but the quality hit is very significant. Good for record shots but not as much more.

The MII version makes a big jump in this area and, as said earlier, comes up in line with the 100-400mm (the 100-400mm has the edge in unedited test shots, but after editing its really hard to impossible to tell them aparT) .

 

[MLCIII]

Hey Overread, thanks for your inputs. I think my mind's made up. I just need to finish talking the wife into it. I think I'll need to factor in the cost of a new purse.

 

[grafxman]

I've read just a bit about the Sigma. What I've seen is that it holds its own despite slight color fringing and heavy vignetting at longer focal lengths. But people were concerned with the build quality. I travel quite a lot, so that concerns me. Do you have any experience with the lens? Maybe you can speak to the build quality?

@Darkshadow, you're right. It's all about the light!

I own several Sigma lenses. About the only "gentle" shooting I do is the occasional museum. Everything is wildlife, zoos and aquariums...in other words mostly outside. I've traveled all over Florida through the Everglades, wildlife management areas, parks, Merritt Island, various wetlands, etc. and I've never had any problem with any of them. I have photographed all the zoos in Florida and Ohio and quite a few other zoos. I'm not someone who babies my gear either. That's a lot of traveling. So long as you take the minimal precautions that you would take with any other lens such as keeping them dry and not banging them too much you'll be fine with a Sigma.

 

[EIngerson]

If you can afford it, buy it. It is an excellent lens. If you are going to vomit after you make the purchase, then go for the non-is version and save yourself some cash. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy professional gear, you just have to be able to justify the purchase.

Haha thanks, Kathy. It's a great way to look at it. This thread should've been called "How to Talk My Wife Into Letting Me Spend Two Grand".

I found your flaw. lol, You should beg forgiveness instead.

 

[EDL]

Check out the new Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. It isn't "weather sealed", but is "moisture resistant" (according to them), has IS and fast focus for about $800 less than the Canon. The Canon does top it optically on the long end, but at less than 200mm it rivals the Canon.

I've been bouncing around a 2.8 zoom and reading and reading and checking out the tests, etc. I was about dead set on the Canon but ended up selling out a website I take care of and the little extra money gave me other options. As of now I'm going with the Tamron, a Canon MPE-65 for macro (my real love) and in the process of sealing the deal on an MT-24EX macro flash from a seller.

Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Lens

Reviews:

Lens Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A009)
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Review | PhotographyBLOG
Review: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD (Canon EF) - The Phoblographer


I looked at the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM but all the reviews I read knocked it a bit for the softness at the higher end of the zoom and loss of contrast. There's no weather sealing of any kind on it. The Tamron is only $100 more in price and if the test shots and reviews are any indication, the Tamron has the edge.

Even with all that, based on the tests (and indeed the users here who actually own one) the Canon is the one to have if the best is what you want, price be damned. If it weren't for macro, I'd be getting the Canon zoom, no question.

 

[MLCIII]

I really need that weather sealing. I travel a lot in the tropics, and the humidity is so bad I bring along a dry box. I can't be having fungus and crap growing inside my lens. I've made my decision. I'm going big. Thanks for the help, everyone!

 

[MLCIII]

I was finally able to pick up the lens, and it's a BEAST! Not expecting it to be this big, but I really love it. Here are a couple of shots from yesterday at dusk.
1. 1/25 sec 200mm ISO640

IMG_4564 by MLCIII


2. 1/6 sec (!!!!!) 200mm ISO 640

IMG_4589 by MLCIII

I'm really impressed with the IS, so glad I didn't wimp out and go for the non-IS version. It was seriously getting dark, and this thing kept up like a champ. Thanks again for the advice, everybody!

 

[Juga]

Now you are making me want one...

 

[Steve5D]

I bought my 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) back when I was shooting with my Digital Rebel; maybe seven years ago; long before I started doing this professionally. In all that time, I've never found myself wishing that I'd bought the IS version. Like Darrell, I'm a lot more steady than I thought, despite the amount of coffee I drink.

With regards to the Sigma version, I'm a fan of Sigma, and would have no concerns regarding the build quality. When you travel, you'll be transporting it in,m presumably, a padded bag, yes? Well, I just don't see any real cause for concern. Plus, as others have said, it's far less expensive than the Canon lens, which opens up a potential funding stream for, you guessed it, more gear!

Whichever way you go, you're going to be doing a lot more shooting, and that's a good thing!

***EDIT***

And this is what happens when you reply to posts as you read them. I didn't know you'd bought the lens already!

I don't really see the non-IS version as "wimping out", though. Some folks just don't need the IS, so it's nice that the option is there...

 

[kathyt]

Hey Overread, thanks for your inputs. I think my mind's made up. I just need to finish talking the wife into it. I think I'll need to factor in the cost of a new purse.

Can I get a picture with the new lens of your wife's new purse. it better be a good one since you went big!