Canon 70-200 f2.8 l usm

[razbo]

Hi,

I've just purchased a canon 70-200f2.8 l usm lens, i decided to buy this as i couldn't really afford buying the is version.

I have made right choice with this lens or have i wasted my money?

thanks

Raz

 

[nebugeater]

bought the 70 200 2.8 II IS a few months ago and all I can add it that I have experimented using the lens with the IS on and off for the same shots. It is amazing what it can do to help catch the marginal shot. I was not sure I was making the right decision with the IS but looking at it now with my limited time iwht it I already know it was 100% the correct thing to spend th added $$$$$ on.

 

[mogud]

What is the reason you chose the 70-200mm f/2.8 ? Do you do a lot of low light photography? Not knowing what you shoot, it's difficult to say whether you made wise choice. Digital Picture Review (Canon Review) has a very favourable review of the lens. The lens is certainly heavy at just slightly more that 1300g whereas the 70-200mm f/4 IS is almost half the weight and optically just as sharp. Before I purchase a lens, I rent it for a weekend and use it as much as I can. I've changed my mind about a lens purchase as a result. Enjoy your new lens.

 

[razbo]

At the moment i'm not sure what i want to shoot, i want to experiment with in most areas, such as portrait weddings, events, anything really,

 

[Bateman75]

i had a 70-200 MK I and it was a great peace of glass. But since i could sell my MK I and just put a little more money in i got the MK II IS. The IS was not a the thing that saved shots for me ( i shot mainly sports) but its great to have the when i need it.. But you have not wasted $$$ cause u have one of the best lenses out there.

 

[unfocused]

It sounds like you are suffering from the common ailment of buyer's remorse. Don't worry, you made a good purchase.

Consider this: It looks like a used version of the lens is selling on Adorama for just a little less than $100 under the new price. It would have cost you more than that to rent the lens for a month.

So, even if you decide not to keep it, you won't be out that much money.

Also, keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago that lenses didn't even have IS. These days we all act like IS is essential, but we used to shoot all the time with non-IS lenses and never even thought about it because it wasn't an option. Use the lens, enjoy it and think about all the other goodies you can buy with the $1,000 you didn't spend on IS.

If you decide later that you absolutely have to have IS, then you'll be over halfway there when you sell this lens.

 

[razbo]

Under what situation would the IS be used for?

 

[Admin US West]

Under what situation would the IS be used for?

IS can be used whenever the subject is not moving to set a slow shutter speed and avoid blur from movement of the camera. This works well in low light.

Under normal lighting conditions it will also help eliminate any blur.

However, if you want to freeze motion, you need a fast shutter speed, usually quite fast. IS does not help freeze a moving subject.

For normal every day walk around images it works very well indeed. But for sports and flying birds, you will need shutter speed.

In some ways, it can be like gaining 2-4 stops of light.

 

[tomscott]

I have lenses with both IS and non IS. I also have this lens. It is one of my absolute favorite lenses and try to use it as much as possible!!! incredible image quality beautiful boekh, great aperture for low light. I have a steady hand, so the IS isnt a must for me, although it is nice for those lower light shots. But if that is the case I up the ISO and problem solved.

It depends, in my opinion get out and shoot with it and you will soon fall in love with it! I was in the same situation i got mine for £650 and the mark I IS at the time was £1250 so double just for the IS!! now the mark II is £1800 in my opinion ridiculous for the added IS, i know the image quality is better but im not using a 1D or a 5D so for me it wasn't worth it. Also i feel this lens is alot more suited on a crop body because of the extra length you get. It was definitely my most favorite purchase. Also IS doesn't miraculously make images better it compensates for camera shake not the subject. So if you are shooting a bird and its moving it will not compensate for it! unless your panning on mode 2. Even on my IS lenses i dont shoot with it continuously, just when i need it when its darker etc.

It is a nice extra but not necessary and for the prices of the mark II versions of the IS makes it a hard buy for me! Plus at 200mm you are not really zooming in far so the shake isnt as bad as say a 400mm the more the magnification the more apparent shake it and the better it is to have IS. So go out shoot with it and if you are having problems then trade it in for the IS version but my advice is to stick with it. You will learn how to shoot with a steadier hand and improve your photographic technique. Sometimes people rely on technology too much and forget the basics. It is about the image at the end of the day and not that "i have an IS 70-200mm" if you are struggling then trade it in and you wont loose alot of money.

Tom Scott

 

[razbo]

Thanks for that tom, thats cheap £650 for the non is, was that brand new?

 

[tomscott]

No mine was a 3 year old version. The thing with L series lenses is that they are extremely well built and expensive so people buy them and look after them. Also they are not updated very often and it is quite an old lens design, so you can be sure they are ok being abit older. Alot of people who buy them arnt pros either so most lenses arnt used to their potential and i managed to get mine in A+ condition apart from the lens hood, which was scratched. I doubt it had taken more than 1000 shots. I buy alot of my kit second hand because of the savings and most of the time they are like new!

I am very meticulous about buying second hand kit tho, glass must be in perfect condition no scratches and definitely no mould!! Otherwise i walk away, no ebay either i will only buy if i can see. They must come with the box and accessories and i usually go to view to see the aesthetic condition too. I recently got a 17-55mm F2.8 for £549 and the previous owner had bought it from the shop and owned it 3 months and decided to buy the 24-70mm instead so traded it in and i got it for £549!! like £300 saving and it was in absolutely perfect condition! Probably less than 100 shots! I use the London camera exchange because alot of the shops specialize in Canon, they are national too so they are very competitively priced and they will service the lens to make sure it is perfect and they clean used equipment meticulously! + you get a warranty with the products so you are safe. So i have full confidence! it does help to know what to look for but ive had a few years experience. Saves to look and find a perfect one, even if its only a saving of £100 you could spend that on buying a protector or a lens hood or other equipment.

Tom Scott

 

[motorhead]

The non IS version of the f/2.8 70-200 is marginally bettter than the IS version optically, and thats why in late 2005, after a lot of careful research, I went the same route as the OP. But before others jump down my throat, it has to be said that the differences are extremely small and are probably only apparent when doing laboratory tests. In the real world I'd be perfectly happy with either.

As others have said, its a very good lens so get out there and enjoy it. IS can be a useful addition, but it's not essential.

 

[Admin US West]

The non IS version of the f/2.8 70-200 is marginally bettter than the IS version optically, and thats why in late 2005, after a lot of careful research, I went the same route as the OP. But before others jump down my throat, it has to be said that the differences are extremely small and are probably only apparent when doing laboratory tests. In the real world I'd be perfectly happy with either.

As others have said, its a very good lens so get out there and enjoy it. IS can be a useful addition, but it's not essential.

I've had the f/2.8 non IS, the f/2.8 IS, and the 2.8 IS MK II.

I found noticible improvement in the non IS lens when compared with the Ver 1 IS.

The VER II IS is in a league of its own, and slightly but noticibly sharper than my f/4 IS which I kept and disposed of the others.

 

[bvukich]

...which I kept and disposed of the others.

I'd love to be your garbage man.

 

[Admin US West]

...which I kept and disposed of the others.

I'd love to be your garbage man.

I already had a f/4 IS when I bought them, after testing them, I sold them on ebay, craigslist. I returned the 70-200mm l MK II.

I did not lose any money on them. By the time, i bought the MK II, I just did not see an advantage of the f/2.8 over my combination of the f/4 zoom and prime lenses, and the weight helped me decide against it. It was a wonderful lens though.

 

[Velo Steve]

Wasted your money, no. The lens you got is a fine piece of equipment.

For me, though, it would be the wrong choice. I like really sharp results, and often end up with less light than I really want. That happens frequently from indoor sports, to social events where a flash would be obtrusive, to dusk/dawn nature photography. Having the IS is the key to getting some of those shots when the lens is already wide open (or close), ISO is as high as I can stand, and the shutter speed is still on the low side.

I'll partially disagree with an earlier poster about freezing motion. IS won't stop motion blur, but it still helps to remove some of the other vibrations you get when panning with a moving subject.

Steve