# Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L and the IS version



## HoboSyke (Jul 12, 2006)

Hi all,

Im in the market for one of the above lenses. Thing is. Ive read a number of reveiws how the IS version isnt as sharp as the non IS version.

Im not sure how much i'll use the IS features of the IS version and wonder if I should just get the non IS? Also the sharpness factor I hear about concerns me although alot of people rave how sharp the IS version is.

I am prepared to spring the extra cash for the IS version but id favour the non IS if it was a sharper rather then haveing the IS feature i think.

Anyone had hands on experience with these lenses?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 12, 2006)

I have the 70-200 f/4 L, and it is a super sharp lens.  I've seen enough sample images from the 2.8 IS to know that it's also a very sharp lens, and you WILL use the IS, I'm sure.  Handholding a 200mm lens is not easy.  Even in bright daylight, if you want to shoot at ISO 100, and shoot at anything other than wide open, you'll use it.

I find myself wishing I had IS about 90% of the time.


----------



## HoboSyke (Jul 12, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I have the 70-200 f/4 L, and it is a super sharp lens. I've seen enough sample images from the 2.8 IS to know that it's also a very sharp lens, and you WILL use the IS, I'm sure. Handholding a 200mm lens is not easy. Even in bright daylight, if you want to shoot at ISO 100, and shoot at anything other than wide open, you'll use it.
> 
> I find myself wishing I had IS about 90% of the time.


 

Thanks very much for the advice Matt!!

I trust your word through your experience ive seen here.

Think im gunna get the IS!!


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 12, 2006)

Enjoy   You'll love that lens.

You might also want to invest in the 1.4x TC.  It will turn your lens into a 98-280 f/4, and you'll still retain IS.  I use the 1.4x TC with my f/4 L, and while you do lose a tiny bit of sharpness, and 1 stop of light, it is very sharp, and gives you that extra reach without buying a 300mm lens.


----------



## HoboSyke (Jul 12, 2006)

Also sound advice about the converter. I hear the 2x TC isnt all that great?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 12, 2006)

They are both great, but you will sacrifice more with the 2x converter.  You lose 2 stops of light, making your lens an f/5.6, and you will lose more sharpness.  In most cases, it is better to buy the equivalent prime lens, for example, buy a 400mm prime, versus a 70-200 with a 2x TC.  The exception is when you have a 400 prime, or 500 or 600mm prime, and you put a 2x TC on it.  Yes, you lose some quality, but how else are you going to get those focal lengths, not to mention afford them!  A 600mm f/4 is over $7500  

If I were you, I'd start with the 1.4x TC, since it's not THAT expensive, and if you feel you need more focal length, then start saving for a big prime.


----------



## Reverend (Jul 12, 2006)

That lens is awesome! Right now, its my absolute favorite lens!!

Here are a couple totally candid, almost "snapshot-ish" pics I took with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS over the weekend.












If you want, you can see the rest at http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/ReverendAlfie/Joel July BBQ/

I say if you can afford it, go for it! You won't be disappointed.


----------



## HoboSyke (Jul 12, 2006)

Thanks again Matt.. I dont know how i'd go with a big telephoto prime. I like the freedom of being able to zoom, especially with long telephoto lenses. Smaller primes like the 50mm are ok for me.

I'll get the 1.4x TC as im using it on a 20D which would give it 400mm at the long end.


----------



## nakedyak (Jul 14, 2006)

Matt, with the 1.4x TC on the 70-200 f4 do you still have autofocus?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 14, 2006)

nakedyak said:
			
		

> Matt, with the 1.4x TC on the 70-200 f4 do you still have autofocus?



Yes, and you would with the 2x as well.  You don't lose IS either.


----------



## nakedyak (Jul 14, 2006)

but the 70-200 with the 2x would be an f8 lens right?


----------



## nakedyak (Jul 14, 2006)

it'd be a 140-40mm f8, or 35mm equivalent of 224-640mm. wow


----------



## Reverend (Jul 14, 2006)

The aperture shouldn't change. a 2.8 will stay a 2.8, an F4 will remain an F4..... If I'm wrong, please correct me.


----------



## nakedyak (Jul 14, 2006)

using a 1.4x teleconverter reduces the amount of light by 1 stop, so an f4 lens will become an f5.6

the 2x TC reduces light by 2 stops, so the f4 would become an f8.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 14, 2006)

There are a few of use there that have the 70-200 f2.8 IS myself include, everyone seem very happy with it the image quality, as for the IS option I was very high on if at first but have stop using it as mush with sport shooting, because with high shutter speeds it is not need at all, IMO IS only help with slow shutter speeds


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 14, 2006)

Reverend said:
			
		

> The aperture shouldn't change. a 2.8 will stay a 2.8, an F4 will remain an F4..... If I'm wrong, please correct me.


 
Aperture does not change physical size, but it size denotation and effect does. WHAT! There is this math formula that I never learned and do not planed to that determines the aperture size. By adding an extender you change variables and the out come of the formula

with the 2x on the 70-200 it goes up F64


----------



## DonSchap (Jul 15, 2006)

You might say the Teleconverter reduces the amount of light that gets to camera's sensor by 1-full f/stop. That means... if your aperture is set to 2.8 (indicated) and you have the EF 1.4x attached... the actual light to the sensor is at f/4 levels. 

I have found that the _Canon_ EOS 20D does have the _intelligence_ to know when one of the higher end T/Cs (Canon's EF 1.4x or EF 2x... or TAmROn's SP1.4x or SP2x) have been added on the the camera... it does indicate no less than f/4. In other words... it cannot indicate the lens' f/2.8 maximum aperture, the EOS 20D now _knows_ it is not possible.

With other teleconverters (the cheap, low-end ones), only the actual camera's light metering will indicate this change (as the T/Cs do not offer this _intelligence_). The f/stop indicator will play _stupid_ and still read f/2.8 when it really is not, so you have to trust the camera's actual metering for proper exposure... and realize your _depth of field_ (DOH) has changed accordingly. You are not going to see f/2.8 bokeh.

If you use an EF 2x teleconverter, you will lose 2-full f/stops of light through it. Taking the f/2.8 to f/5.6 response. 

That's what happens, folks. Put one on... and see for yourself!

BTW... if you can, use high-end T/Cs. Especially with the good glass. You may think your lens is fast... but with a crappy t/c on it... it's probably just half-fast.


----------



## HoboSyke (Jul 16, 2006)

Thanks for all the replys and good comments guys!


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 16, 2006)

the IS is great.  I'm quite glad i got the IS version...at first i was worried it would be soft, but it's sharp (very sharp from 70mm-175, sharp at 200mm...i only measure by wide open as that's mostly what i shoot...at 3.5-f4 it's tack sharp at all focal lengths).  I also realized that comparing 200mm (usually the softest part of a zoom) wide open to the 85mm 1.8 stopped down to f4 wasn't a fair comparison .   once you see that you can get 200mm shots at 1/30, you'll be very glad you bought the IS.  if you use a tripod most of the time and shoot outdoors alot, it's not as big of a deal.  if I knew I'd never do anything lowlight handheld, i might have got the non IS as it's lighter and cheaper.  but i do shoot alot of lowlight and almost all handheld, so that made my decision for me.


----------

