70-200 f2.8 IS or 70-200 f2.8 non IS?

[garrentee]

Im sure there have been numerous threads started with this subject but would like to throw my hat in the ring without searching...

Im in the market for one of these lenses and was wondering is the IS really worth it?

I dont shoot alot of sports or wildlife but it would be nice to have the IS...Is it worth the 500 bucks or so for the IS?

I met a guy the other day in Arches National park and he had the IS vesion and let me shoot a few shots with it and man was it nice, BUT heavy!!!

Thanks in advance...im traveling!!

Garren

[Gbee]

Common wisdom on the various forums on this subject suggest that the non-IS version is sharper ~ and lighter.

IS have little or no place in sport, that said there are always areas to disprove this. Wildlife suggests the use of long lenses, the 70~200 L is not a long lens by this category, but IS and long lens wildlife can be beneficial.

I bought the IS version, it's something I wanted to have, I leave it off all the time routinely, employing it to get those sharp pics below my normal handholdability.

[brian.austin]

There is a 6oz weight savings with a non-IS model. Not terribly significant in my book. I'd rather have it and not use it reguarly than not have it at all.

I find it worth the extra $$.

[Harry]

If the purpose of the IS is to stabilize the image, then it would be useful for probably 90% of all shots you take no matter what. Particularly at full zoom, wind conditions, parkinsons tremors etc. . .I don't have either, due to cost, but if I did, it would be the IS model.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by garrentee

Im sure there have been numerous threads started with this subject but would like to throw my hat in the ring without searching...

OK, lazy, but honest and open about it

I'm in the market for one of these lenses and was wondering is the IS really worth it?

...it is to me...

I dont shoot alot of sports or wildlife but it would be nice to have the IS...Is it worth the 500 bucks or so for the IS?

As said before: ...sports (fast shutterspeeds) mostly does not need IS, for wildlife the 200mm is about 50% too short ('wildlife' begins at 400mm in many shooter's books...)

...but especially in 'all other circumstances' (probably 80% - 90%) IS helps you to be able to use the lowest possible ISO (and shutterspeed ) for your subject, to get the maximum image quality.

IMO the 500 bucks are worth it, as not only does the in-lens IS stabilize your final image on the sensor, it also stabilizes the view in the viewfinder, so you have a smoother look to compose, and because the image is stable, AF also gains in speed and reliability

Note also, that IS is NOT the only difference between the two 70-200F2.8's: the non IS isn't protected ('weather resistant') like the 70-200IS, and also note making a lens 'weatherproof' is more than just putting a rubber gasket on the lens mount ...

...also note that numerous tests on all forums have declared the non-IS the sharpest of the two, but only by the marginal hair

I met a guy the other day in Arches National park and he had the IS version and let me shoot a few shots with it and man was it nice, BUT heavy!!!

...did you also notice that it balances beautifully ?? ...

...you get used to the weight, most feel it's worth it, in the end, when they watch the results ...

...but as always, besides the facts given it's only *my* €0.02 worth of opinion, YMMV...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[evoryware]

If I had the money I would have bought the IS and still plan to. Right now though, I have the 2.8 Non-IS and it is a beautiful thing. I haven't caught myself in to many situations where I said to myself "Oh, I need I the IS". I don't think you would be upset either way.

[garrentee]

Thanks everyone...great info!!

Garren

[Rumpole]

I got the non-IS version for a few years but I am planning to trade it in for the IS version.

I know the non-IS version is sharper but only very marginally. The added advantage of IS version is that it is weather-proof!

Cheers
KH

[00silvergt]

At full zoom, I would wish I had the IS (no tripod, of course). When practicing my very novice panning skills, I would wish I had the IS. If I were shooting night events, inside the batcave (BKA, the church) I would wish I had the IS. However, if I were shooting something relatively still, without using full TP and wide open, I would wish I had the non-IS. Another thing to consider, you can almost buy another lens for the difference in price between the IS and non-IS. So different needs for different priorities. No one all, good answer.

[icee]

If you can afford to get the IS now then get it as in the long run it will save you money. I have the IS and think it's great, most people that have the non IS seem to want the IS at a later date, therefore lossing a bit on money on the non IS lens when they sell it and still having to pay for the IS lens.

[swampler]

I got the non-IS to save some bux (mostly to keep the wife off my butt, which that didn't work anyway), but I shoot mostly sports where I need the faster shutter anyway. There have been a few times the IS would have been nice, but mostly I haven't missed it.

[titan307]

i chose to go with the new tamron 70-200. Maybe i missed a cleaner shot maybe not. i havent fallen for the gimmick of IS for an extra $600. to me it was like an engine leveler. why pay $75 for one when all i have to do is readjust. what did people do before IS? You learned to hold your breath, leaned on something, you learn to use what you have,just like if your using primes and the image is out of reach,do you let the shot go since you cant zoom? No. You take off towards it. if the non IS is clearer then save your money for other items. not trying to offend anybody and hope i havent if i did i am truely sorry. its just my opinion. SO what did you do before IS?

[harryd]

I went for the IS because I shoot plays for a local high school and the light is poor and wildlife and it is great early and late just too short most of the time. The IS has been invaluable to me and I almost never turn it off.

[titan307]

as you can see with the replies it is totally subjective. the best option i can see is, buy the IS,use it for a while with th IS on and off. if you find you dont really need IS sell it and buy the non IS pocket the difference. there really is no right/wrong answer for this question. its just a matter of if you do /do not need it.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by titan307

i havent fallen for the gimmick of IS for an extra $600.

that extra $600 buys a bit more than just IS, see my reply above

...whether you need a weather-resistant lens is another and different question

SO what did you do before IS?

*I* learned to control (not hold!) my breath, I leaned on things, I learned to use what you *had* to have before IS: tripod and monopod...



Kindest regards!

Max@Home