IS or non IS?

(dirwoody) · (dirwoody) **Join Date: Apr 2003** 03-18-2009, 3:30 PM

I'm buying a canon 70-200 L very VERY soon, but can't decide between the f4 IS version and the f2.8 non IS. Just can't foot the dough for the 2.8 IS, so it's between those two.
Oh, primary use will be for weddings, wakeboarding, general professional usage, and a little bit of martial arts (kids, non professional)
Any help is appreciated
Thanks everybody!

(wakedad33) · (wakedad33) **Join Date: Oct 2005** 03-18-2009, 5:47 PM

I feel your pain, I've been struggling with the same decision, I've read through hundreds of reviews on Fred Miranda on both lenses and got advice from people I trust on this board. Pulled the trigger on the 70-200 F4 L IS on Monday, it's going to be here tomorrow

Stoked!!

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 03-18-2009, 5:58 PM

I have a f/4 70-200 and love it but there are times that I wish I had the extra f/stops. I'd go with the 2.8

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 03-18-2009, 6:49 PM

My totally unbiased opinions: Upload

Heavy/big/bulky lenses: advantage f4L IS

The sharpest zoom Canon (and for that matter anyone) makes: advantage f4L IS

Handholding at 1/5th sec: advantage f4L IS

I owned a 70-200 f2.8 L non IS for over a year and I can count the number of shots at f2.8 I took on the fingers of one hand but like Walt says if you know you're going to need f2.8 a lot then there's not much discussion.

The only thing you mentioned above that would make me seriously consider the f2.8 is weddings as an f2.8 lens is going to give better BG blur when you're in portrait type shoots. However the f2.8L IS is the bokeh king not the straight f2.8.

I still maintain you can pretty much do everything you need to with f4 and unless you absolutely know why you need f2.8 you'll be happier with the f4' versatility.

I have owned all the Canon 70-200's (the straight f4 twice) and I will never sell my f4L IS, I'd just add an f2.8 if I really needed it.

One more thing to think about: you'll get on average more keepers with IS at any focal length and at any shutter speed. Whether anyone thinks there is the potential or not camera shake is always possible, heck I see it all the time with my 400 f5.6L even at 4000th sec.

Anyhow you can't go that far wrong with either, they are both great lenses.

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 03-18-2009, 6:52 PM

I was in your shoes Friday. I ended up dropping the extra cash and getting the 2.8 IS. Now, I have nowhere near the skills of Walt and others here but to try something I turned the IS "off" and took a shot across the store (no flash) of some lens boxes then turned it back "on" and took the same shot. The clarity difference was shocking. The IS nearly completely eliminated the slight handshake and the pic was MUCH sharper. So, as painful as it was I dropped the $1700 for the 2.8 IS. I figure you can do EVERYTHING with the 2.8 IS and you'll never say "I wish I had IS or had the 2.8". It is rather obnoxiously heavy though. The 70-200 F4 IS would be much more pleasant to carry around IMO.

(clubmyke) · (clubmyke) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 03-18-2009, 10:26 PM

I love the f4IS !!! Awesome lens

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 03-19-2009, 5:39 AM

Rob, you are exhibiting the early symptons of "white lens disease" Upload

If you don't get help soon you'll end up like me! Upload

(dirwoody) · (dirwoody) **Join Date: Apr 2003** 03-19-2009, 7:28 AM

You guys are awesome. I figured out a way to get the 2.8 IS, hopefully I can hold the thing up!

(steezyshots) · (steezyshots) **Join Date: Feb 2008** 03-19-2009, 8:27 PM

2.8 IS is my favorite lens!

(drottie) · (drottie) **Join Date: Feb 2009** 03-19-2009, 8:52 PM

If any of you big 'Ballers want to donate your old F4L after you get your new 2.8's I know a guy that'd give one a REAL nice home......

(lgndracer) · (lgndracer) **Join Date: May 2008** 03-24-2009, 7:50 PM

My 70-200 2.8IS is on my camera waaaayyyy more often than all my other lens' combined. It is just an awesome all around lens

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 03-24-2009, 8:25 PM

Do you guys use a Cir-Polarizing filter when shooting wakeboarding? I bought two filters for my 70-200- a Hoya Cir-Polar and my regular (excellent) Rilex 77mm Haze. I have never used a polarized filter on the water and was really pretty happy with my Rilex Haze on my 70-300 IS I used last year. I guess I'll try the Hoya and see what I think.

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 03-25-2009, 6:01 AM

Every time you move the camera you need to adjust the polarizer so I found them to be useless when shooting WBing. Plus if you expose properly you can get the same effects in post.

(dirwoody) · (dirwoody) **Join Date: Apr 2003** 03-25-2009, 6:59 AM

I was thinking I would run into the same theing Munger, It's supposed to be here today, I'm soooooo excited!

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 03-25-2009, 7:02 AM

Rich-
Can you explain that a little more? Is it different than a UV Haze filter where you just screw it on there and leave it alone? How do you need to adjust it? I never tough my Haze filters... they stay on there 100% of the time. Sorry for the dumb question but the thing was like $70 so I may need to return it or something if I won't be able to use it.

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 03-25-2009, 7:35 PM

The reason it's called a circular polarizer is the filter rotates on it's mount. Depending on where the reflections are you must turn the filter ring to be at a cross direction for the polarization to take effect. The minute you move the camera the effect will change and most of the time you'll end up with some weird colorations in the sky and/or water that don't look natural if the cam is moved at all.

They are best used on a tripod where you can adjust them until the effect suits you and then take the shot, so they're are good for landscapes but not much good for action.