which lens - 70-200 2.8 non Is or

wheresdavid

After falling into a river in vietnam and trashing one of my cameras and my sigma 10-20 i just found out that i will get an insurance payment of about $1,200.

i don't want to run right out and buy something, i am in thailand and the prices are either good (40D $1,100 with worldwide warranty) or bad 70-200L 4.0 non IS $800 or the same as the states 70-200 2.8 non IS about $1150.

I travel and I should mostly "people" shots, shots in markets, villages ... and have been thinking, "boy i could get "better" shots if i had a longer lens. I have with me a 24-105L which after getting it serviced in bangkok is taking tack sharp photos, a nifty 50 and a 135 2.0 tack sharp lens. i am thinking of getting the 70-200 2.8 non is. it is heavy but i can deal with that. ideally i think my traveling lenses one day will be a 17-55 and a 70-200 2.8.

my question is since i have the 135L will i be gaining a "significant" advantage if i get the 70-200? is the 70-200 2.8 as sharp as the 135 (i am assuming not since primes tend to always be sharper). is there another lens that you would consider given my situation? i shoot with a 40D.

cheers,

Dave

urbanaries

wheresdavid wrote:

After falling into a river in vietnam and trashing one of my cameras and my sigma 10-20 i just found out that i will get an insurance payment of about $1,200.

i don't want to run right out and buy something, i am in thailand and the prices are either good (40D $1,100 with worldwide warranty) or bad 70-200L 4.0 non IS $800 or the same as the states 70-200 2.8 non IS about $1150.

I travel and I should mostly "people" shots, shots in markets, villages ... and have been thinking, "boy i could get "better" shots if i had a longer lens. I have with me a 24-105L which after getting it serviced in bangkok is taking tack sharp photos, a nifty 50 and a 135 2.0 tack sharp lens. i am thinking of getting the 70-200 2.8 non is. it is heavy but i can deal with that. ideally i think my traveling lenses one day will be a 17-55 and a 70-200 2.8.

my question is since i have the 135L will i be gaining a "significant" advantage if i get the 70-200? is the 70-200 2.8 as sharp as the 135 (i am assuming not since primes tend to always be sharper). is there another lens that you would consider given my situation? i shoot with a 40D.

cheers,

Dave

I agonized over this purchase (the 135L I considered, too) and ended up with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro. Until I was ready to pony up the big bucks for the Canon 2.8 IS version, there really wasn't a reason to stay in the Canon line. The Sigma is an incredible lens, built like a tank, and I have been 110% happy with it for $780 brand new from B&H. Just make sure you buy the newer Macro version, it focuses very close for a telephoto, and the focus motor is faster than some of the older versions.

As far as the prime vs. zoom, there are more situations than not I can think of in candid situations, where foot zooming is either restricted by space, time, kills the moment, and many others. I've found 70-200 to be a very likeable range, and coupled with the 17-55....hard to beat!

claudermilk

That's a tough decision. I am a bit biased in that I own a razor-sharp 70-200/2.8L non-IS and love it. I've also seen the images out of a friend's 135L and they are fantastic. Really all the 70-200 lenses are among the very best zooms made so you really cannot go wrong getting one. So I guess my vote is go for it.

Shorthair

If you're shooting open markets and villages you might consider the f/4 IS for not much difference in price. It's said by some to be sharper than the 2.8 if both are shot at f/4. I just got one and am not speaking from much experience but it is impressively sharp.

jonh68

Something to consider is maybe the canon 300 f/4 prime. I have been using one with a 1.4 extender and the images are very sharp with the TC. It's light enough for walking around as well.

evoryware

splurge the extra on the 2.8 IS

I'm biased to the 2.8 non IS. I love the thing.

Shima

I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm (not the macro version) and it's served me well at events I've shot... it will soon be going with me to Japan from March 1st-11th. I really want a Canon 70-200 f2.8 is... but the vast difference in cost made the sigma much more appealing and it has been very sharp and fast for me so I have no complaints in going "cheap"!

As for my other walk around, closer, lens. I use the Canon 24-105 f4/L IS... definitely my favorite to leave on the body when I don't need the longer reach or faster speed.

darkdragon

I have to say that as far as non-IS vs IS, I'd say go IS on everything.

When I first got my 40D I decided to get a non-IS version of a lens because it was cheaper (by about $450). I was completely miserable with it. It was a zoom similar to what you are looking at (but not the same thing). Even at 70mm the lack of IS gave me camera shake.

So what I'm saying is that unless you are planning on ALWAYS having/using a tripod - spend the extra for the IS.

I ended up returning that non-IS lens and saving up for a month to get the 70-200 f4 IS ---- which I just LOVE (the 2.8 was too heavy for me)

Scott_Quier

darkdragon wrote:

So what I'm saying is that unless you are planning on ALWAYS having/using a tripod - spend the extra for the IS.

- Get the IS - you won't regret it a bit.

As for the 2.8 vs. the 4 - well, it appears you are getting most of your shots outdoors. The 4 is not a bad way to go. Though if you spring for it and don't mind the weight, the 2.8 IS is one sweet lens.

Were I in your shoes (I can only dream about that right now ), I think I would probably go with the EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS - weight being the deciding factor and the fact that the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is only 1 stop - you can usually (but not always) make up for that with a boost of the ISO.

JohnnyJr

Sorry Dave, you've ruined yourself with the 135L. In comparison -- in my opinion -- the 70-200 (either one) is distinctly NOT sharp wide open when compared to the 135L. I tried and returned both the IS and non IS version. In the end I got the 200 2.8L which is distinctly SHARP at 2.8. The zooms were better when stopped down, but for me sharp wide open was the deciding factor. Just my opinion of course and plenty will disagree, but the 135L really is in a whole different class.

Also, depends what you'll be shooting. Do you need the zoom? I found that I was always at the 200 end anyway when I had the zoom on. If you love the 135L you'll also love the 200 2.8. Heck, you can go buy the 200L, an 85 1.8, some 8gb memory cards, a 1.4TC (which works great with both the the 135 & 200) and a nice dinner for your sweetheart with all the money you saved on the big white beasties!

wheresdavid wrote:

my question is since i have the 135L will i be gaining a "significant" advantage if i get the 70-200? is the 70-200 2.8 as sharp as the 135 (i am assuming not since primes tend to always be sharper). is there another lens that you would consider given my situation? i shoot with a 40D.

cheers,

Dave

claudermilk

JohnnyJr wrote:

Sorry Dave, you've ruined yourself with the 135L. In comparison -- in my opinion -- the 70-200 (either one) is distinctly NOT sharp wide open when compared to the 135L. I tried and returned both the IS and non IS version. In the end I got the 200 2.8L which is distinctly SHARP at 2.8. The zooms were better when stopped down, but for me sharp wide open was the deciding factor. Just my opinion of course and plenty will disagree, but the 135L really is in a whole different class.

Also, depends what you'll be shooting. Do you need the zoom? I found that I was always at the 200 end anyway when I had the zoom on. If you love the 135L you'll also love the 200 2.8. Heck, you can go buy the 200L, an 85 1.8, some 8gb memory cards, a 1.4TC (which works great with both the the 135 & 200) and a nice dinner for your sweetheart with all the money you saved on the big white beasties!

You are absolutely correct, the primes will beat the zooms in sharpness. But, the 135 cannot shoot at 70mm or 200mm. I have a feeling for what David shoots that flexibility will trump the sharpness edge the prime holds.

For IS vs non, that's a personal decision we each must make. I can say that I honestly do not miss it in my lens. Since I now have a better tripod rig I use it more often, but am just as happy to handhold the beast.

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

You are absolutely correct, the primes will beat the zooms in sharpness. But, the 135 cannot shoot at 70mm or 200mm. I have a feeling for what David shoots that flexibility will trump the sharpness edge the prime holds.

...

I very much agree!

The Canon EF 70-200mm USM lenses in any incarnation are very sharp, even wide open, and their range of focal lengths makes them extremely desirable for a travel documentary style or photojournalistic style of photography.

I would add a low-light and lightweight prime, like the EF 85mm , f1.8 or the EF 50mm, f1.4 for those situations which require DOF control or more light gathering ability.

In my mind the ideal (Canon crop 1.6x) travel combination would be:

One of the "super-wide" zooms (10-20mm-ish)
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

DI-Joe

I just bought the IS version and I'm quite pleased with my purchase. I toiled over it for quite some time before electing to spend the extra money. All of my colleagues implored me to get the IS version stating that I would not be sorry and I most definitely am not sorry for that purchase. They call this particular piece(as well as it's other incarnations, the f/4 and the non IS 2.8) "The Money Maker"

I'm very glad that I spent the extra money even when the difference was financially dramatic. It will pay off.

I hope my perspective helps. I, like yourself, stewed with the choice for some weeks(nearly two months before pulling the trigger on the purchase).

Kind Regards

rpcrowe

I love IS....
Let me preface this post by saying that I am a firm supporter of IS.

Photographers who are biased regarding IS capability in lenses often base their bias on several premises which are only partially true.

The premises are:

1. Only photographers who are ignorant of proper camera holding techniques or who are too lazy to implement these techniques need IS.

2. A tripod or a monopod will eliminate the need for IS.

3. IS is not any good in shooting sports and other moving subjects.

4. The extra stop of an f/2.8 lens will compensate for not having IS.

5. And finally that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens doesn’t provide as good IQ as the non-IS version of that lens.

These premises are either wrong or partially incorrect.

• I don’t know why some posters automatically assume that photographers who take advantage of IS technology are not competent. There is no proof to that premise and in my case, I know that it is false.
  
  
• I certainly agree that monopods or tripods will provide a solid firm support for an camera. However, the use of either of these supports is not always possible and/or desirable. In my case, I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS everywhere I shoot. I use it to shoot people, animals and landscapes. There are many times when a tripod would be impossible to use or even prohibited from use. A monopod provides more flexibility and is great when you are shooting sports with a longer lens. In my case however, I don’t want to be encumbered with a monopod at times (and there are other times when I will happily use one). I also shoot with at least two cameras. Using a monopod would lessen the versatility of switching lenses by simply switching from one camera to another. I would need to mount and remount the camera which I was using because, I couldn’t leave the monopod mounted camera standing alone. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 3-4x more often than I ever used my non-IS version of that lens – simply because I can hand hold the IS version so much better. Additionally, with the new generation IS in the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens; I can (if needed) rely on a slightly lighter tripod. I have found that the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens matched with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens makes a great general purpose and travel combination.
  
  
• I grant that IS will not stop a moving subject but, there are many images in sports that are not of fast moving subjects. Additionally, a sharp background with a subject blurred by some motion can give the illusion of fast motion in some images,. Finally, I (and I assume many other photographers) do not use my lens solely for subjects in motion.
  
  
• I can shoot my lens at 200mm using 1/60 second at f/4 and be assured of almost 100% sharp imagery. At 1/30 second, the keeper rate is lower but still very acceptable. In a lighting level where I would shoot at 1/60 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/120 second at f/2.8. And, when I shoot at 1/30 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/60 second at f/2.8. I can’t hand hold a 200mm lens at 1/120 second with a certainty of sharp images and I cannot get sharp imagery at all using 1/60 second.
  
  
• Although the IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens is said to produce IQ inferior to the non-IS version of that lens; I seriously doubt if you could accurately pick out which images were shot with which lens. Additionally, while the IS version of the f/4L lens is said to produce better IQ than the non-IS version – I also don’t think you could pick out which image is shot with which lens.
  
  An f/2.8 lens might be better for some sports shooting than an f/4 lens because of a more shallow depth of field but, that has nothing to do with IS or no IS.

I consider the f/2.8L model a great lens however, it is far to heavy to enjoy lugging around all day. The f/4L is far lighter and is a joy to use...

Therefore, I contend that price is the only negative factor in selecting or not selecting IS equipped lenses and the IS is well worth the extra cost to me.

Photoskipper

I love the IS. Got the 70-200 F2.8 IS as I have already had the 24-105, and just wanted to extend the coverage a bit more. The 70-200 F2.8 with a 2XTC becomes 140-400 F5.6 IS. I can gain a step or 2 with IS, means it can work like F4 at 400??. Now I have the coverage from 24 to 400 mm.
Sample of the 70-200 F2.8 IS with 2X TC.

claudermilk

Very interesting post by rpcrowe. I cannot argue with much of anything said, and the final conclusion is pretty much spot on, the main downside is price.

I do have to say that I was very surprised with my copy of a non-IS 70-200/2.8. It is noticeably sharper than the many IS copies I've used. I was absolutely not expecting that, and am attributing it to good fortune in getiing a primo copy of the lens. However, it can happen.

I have a fairly close setup to ziggy's optimal list there, purely by coincidence:

12-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
50/1.8 (possibly to be replaced with the 1.4)

This certainly does work extremely well as a kit. Lack of IS is more of an accident of other requirements, timing, and funds, not so much a bias.

Shorthair

Here is a link I was emailed for a classified ad:
http://www.pictureline.com/community/ads/noteBrowse.php?catid=32&type=2
The guy has a 70-200 2.8 IS for $1075 shipped! He said he got it for Christmas, has not even been used b/c he switched to Nikon. Heck of a deal, I just bought the 70-200 f/4 IS from RebelXTnewbie and I love it.--Bran