# Canon 70-200mm L non-IS vs. 70-200mm L with-IS



## Tokyudo (Dec 21, 2008)

Canon 70-200mm L non-IS vs. 70-200mm L with-IS

I just ordered a Canon 50D.  One of my next purchases is the Canon 70-200mm L. 

For those who have used both versions of this great lens, is the IS worth the difference in cost?


----------



## table1349 (Dec 21, 2008)

It all depends if you are going to use it or not.  I shoot a lot of sports, detest weddings so I avoid shooting them like the plague.  IS is virtually worthless for sports or any type photography involving the movement of the subjects.  IS is valuable in low light where it the hand shake that is the problem with slow shutter speeds.  

For me the cost of IS was a waste, because of what I shoot and how I shoot.  All of my lenses have external IS when needed.  Spelled Tripod.  If your style of shooting includes a lot of low light stuff and you don't want to be bothered with a tripod then IS is probably for you.  Otherwise, $500.00 can go a long way to another quality piece of glass.


----------



## usayit (Dec 21, 2008)

Gryph is right...

Got the money, then IS is good to have.
Don't have the money, then be happy.. it is a wonderful lens.

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I did find the IS a very useful feature.


----------



## Tokyudo (Dec 21, 2008)

Low light situations is all I'm going to be shooting.  

I shoot a lot of Mix Martial Arts events and the venues typically have poor lighting.  Lots of Tungstein lights too.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 21, 2008)

Tokyudo said:


> Low light situations is all I'm going to be shooting.
> 
> I shoot a lot of Mix Martial Arts events and the venues typically have poor lighting.  Lots of Tungstein lights too.



Well like I said before, if it is action related then IS is not going to help.  f2.8 and high ISO can get you where you need to be, but IS will not do a thing for you as you need to have a minimum of 1/250th to stop the action.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 21, 2008)

Another thing to consider is what you may be shooting in the future.  For example, you could buy the non-IS now, decide in a few years you need the IS, sell the non-IS for maybe 70-80% what you paid for it, and then buy the IS.

Or you could just buy the IS up-front now if you have the money.


----------



## johngpt (Jan 2, 2009)

I got the IS version because I could afford it, and for future needs. I've had it since late August, primarily shooting night soccer. I haven't yet turned on the IS feature. With my 40D and ISO 1600 or 3200, f2.8 or 3.2 has done well.


----------



## soylentgreen (Jan 2, 2009)

The lens is a tad heavy, so the IS definitely helps with hand held shots.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 2, 2009)

I really like the IS when needed, feeling that baby vibrate in my hand, it is like magic every time.

BTW - I hear the IS adds some glass and is probably just very slightly less sharp than the non IS version.  Along those lines;

Maybe consider a few prime lenses?  They may require some foot work, but the clarity and IQ is addicting.  Another advantage is the light weight and reduced cost...  you can even click pass the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200, getting into some darn fast glass.

-Shea


----------



## keith204 (Jan 3, 2009)

The IS version comes with a big cup of  "ahhhh, no more upgrades..."


----------



## Txaggie08 (Jan 4, 2009)

I've never had issues with my non-is lens and camera shake. Most of the time what I'm shooting isn't moving, and if it's blurry from me shaking it was blurry three stops before hand from motion.....


That being said, I have a background in paintball for nearly 13 years. I hold my camera in a slightly different way than most people do, more like a marker tucked in using my elbows. I've had very good luck with keeping a camera steady with even slower non IS lenses....


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 4, 2009)

The lens is long and heavy, so after a few hours the IS compensates nicely for a weakening arms. It may not freeze the action when shooting sports or dancers in lower light, but it helps get a better shot. Let's say you're at f/2.8, and need to be at 1/60th of a sec... well, a person flying through the air will still blur... but the background will be nice and solid, because at least the frame is steadier than it might be without IS.


----------



## FidelCastrovich (Jan 4, 2009)

IS is great. No doubt about it. 
It's just another tool. You don't NEED it, true. But It helps you get some shots that you wouldn't otherwise get. 
Regarding the cost - only you know if it is worth it. For me, there were no two ways about it - IS all the way. I turn it on from 1/125 downwards and the keeper rate goes up dramatically. 
It's like having a useable ISO 6400 - you don't need it most of the time. And even when you do, there are ways to work around it. But if you have the option, it opens new doors. Whether or not you need to have it, only you can answer that.


----------



## johngpt (Jan 4, 2009)

soylentgreen said:


> The lens is a tad heavy, so the IS definitely helps with hand held shots.


I'm getting stronger over the months I've had it, but still use positioning to help. I move around too much to use a monopod, so here's my preferred position. Left elbow resting on raised left knee.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 5, 2009)

> The IS version comes with a big cup of "ahhhh, no more upgrades..."


Good point Keith.

For me, I knew that I would certainly make use of it but I certainly knew that if I went with a cheaper option (non-IS or maybe the F4 version)...there would come a time when I wished I had not 'cheeped out' and got the best lens...and that time would probably come fairly often.  Sure, I could make due without IS...but it would always be in the back of my mind that I could have done better if I had the best tool for the job.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 5, 2009)

> Left elbow resting on raised left knee.


I was sitting on my arse yesterday and was able to place the lens ring mount foot on my knee!  I'm pretty flexible though, and have a long lens plate. Also used your stance, and even one army man layout!

Guess I better get at those grass stains today 

-Shea


----------



## johngpt (Jan 5, 2009)

Ls3D said:


> Guess I better get at those grass stains today
> 
> -Shea


oxi clean max force spray works a treat on those grass stains.  

I wear knee pads under the slacks and end up with grass stain cleat marks on them!


----------



## sammyd (Nov 26, 2009)

Hi guys 

I am a proud owner of a 7D and take full advantage of the video ( One of the key reasons for buying)

I am just about to purchase either the IS or Non-IS and am mostly thinking about the video aspects after hearing that the 70-200 was recently used in one of 30 seconds to mars new music videos "Kings and Queens" on a 7d Body.... however they did not say if it was a IS or Non-IS ...

anyway ... i was just wondering if anyone has any experience using video with the lens and if its worth the IS as i have herd and image stabilizer especially as gd as the canons work of art is WELL worth it?? 

COMMENTS PLEASE ...and quick im getting it this weekend for SURE

Sammy D


----------



## icassell (Nov 26, 2009)

Since this link has been resurrected, has anyone compared the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L prime with this lens?   It's a heck of a lot less expensive.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 26, 2009)

sammyd said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I am a proud owner of a 7D and take full advantage of the video ( One of the key reasons for buying)
> 
> ...



For video, especially off a tripod, it's almost impossible to get a clean shot without some kind of IS system. This is even more the more you zoom in.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 27, 2009)

icassell said:


> Since this link has been resurrected, has anyone compared the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L prime with this lens?   It's a heck of a lot less expensive.



I can't find any online comparisons, either. Sorry. But chances are it's optically (far?) superior to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L @ 200mm.

User reviews on FM are overwhelmingly positive:

FM Reviews - EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM


----------



## icassell (Nov 27, 2009)

MrLogic said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> > Since this link has been resurrected, has anyone compared the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L prime with this lens?   It's a heck of a lot less expensive.
> ...



What I'd really love to see is a comparison of the 200 f/2.8 plus the 2X TC with Canon's 400mm f/5.6. That would save me an incredible hunk of change.


----------

