First BIG move to an L lense.

MaleficZ

[font=&quot]Well its begun. I'm close to having enough money for an L lens. I will use the lens mostly for sports like football, basketball, and even auto racing (night time too). So I'm thinking about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lense mostly. Then the 70-200 mm f/2.8L USM. And lastly the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM with all that zoom but higher f/.

Now out them all, the 70-200 with image stabilization looks to be THE best for what I’ll be using it for, but it also costs THE most. I was wondering if you guys thought it is worth the extra $650 for the IS?
[/font]

Khaos

Yes.

It's my favorite and most used lens.

It allows for shooting in the the beautiful light of early morning and late evening without worrying about bumping up the ISO or using a tripod. Fantastic lens. I consider it the best zoom lens ever made.

USAIR

70 -200 f2.8L IS USM very nice lens can't go worng
Good candid and portrait lens little long but works great
Can't wait to see your photos from the new lens

And IS is my friend

Fred

Mike Lane

*cough* lens *cough*

(no 'e' at the end of lens)

I've rented the 70-200L 2.8 IS and I really loved it. I've got to say, for my 20D in most situations it was just too long - I mean it's a 112 to 320 lens on the 20D. Then again I don't know what body you have.

But the pics you can get from the thing... oh man, they are really awesome. I envy anyone with that lens even if it is a tad bit long. Now the 5D / 70-200 would be something to behold;)

Well one can dream can't they?

ian408

Greetings!

Sweet lens it is. If you didn't like it and flipped it in Flea Market, I doubt
you'd lose money.

Also, I moved this over to Cameras as it's a more appropriate thread.

pathfinder

Do you really need a zoom? The 135 f2 L has the same apparent mag on a 20D as a 200mm lens on a full frame camera. It is sharp, fast and with a great bokeh. And only $899 with a $35 rebate too. Small, light, black. Be the envy of your friends.

What is the percentage of shots with the 70-200 zoom that are shot at 200?? I agree with the poster who said the 70-200 is a little long for the 20D.... Too long to be useful indoors unless it is a basketball arena

Don't get me wrong, I like the 70-200 F2.8 IS L - but it is heavy, white, and expensive. I used it for this frame on a 1DMkll


But I got this frame with a 20D and the 135 L; guess which I use more often?? :




If you are going to shoot athletics exclusively the reach and the zoom will be worthwhile. For walk around shooting and candid portraits the smaller, cheaper, black 135 L might be a better choice. Both are lovely lenses. I do tend to favor primes more and more.

As for IS, if the lens comes with it, don't pass it up. IS will save your bacon for you over and over.

Here is a shot I captured hand held with a 600mm lens with a shutter speed of 1/13th seconds. Yes, 1/13th handheld 600mm - That is 6 stops from the typical shutter speed needed with a 600mm lens of 1/1000th of a sec. You can't buy six stops of lens speed anywhere.
Not the best shot but ...

Khaos

My 70-200 shots on smug mug: http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/keyword/canon%2070%20to%20200%20is%20l%20zoom/1

Red Bull

Just a quick question. I will probably be getting the 70-200 f/4. (Not even close to having the money for the 2.8 IS...or just the 2.8 )Are the optics pretty much the same? I've never really seen a comparison on the f/4 to the 2.8 IS.

tom e

70-200 IS: click on link for big file; check all the detail, eg the pilot.
http://www.pbase.com/sparkytom/image/47337893