Personal experiences with Canon 70-200mm

[dmann]

So I am looking to purchase a Canon 70-200mm lens. There are four options available 2.8 with or without IS and the 4.0 with or without IS. Now I could get the 2.8 without IS or the 4.0 with IS now or wait a year (or less) and get the 2.8 with IS. Obviously the 2.8 IS is the best choice but I want to know from your experiences and knowledge if it is worth the wait and extra price.

Another thing the 2.8 IS is on sale for $2379.00 cdn, good price?

It may be good to know I want this for portraits and my nieces and nephews sports games. Also I am just starting in photography but have hopes of one day making a go at it. However we will see what happens and how good I can get.

Thanks!

[SwissJon]

Ok, there's two answers here I can give you, I'm a Nikon user, but the options are pretty much the same.

I had the F2.8 without OS. At close range full zoom, I found it difficult to keep it still. Eventually I sold it, for a proft.

I currently own the 2.8 with OS.. It's my favourite lens.

If you're just starting out, I suggest you get the cheapest second hand lens. It's highly likely you'll sell it at close to the price you bought it at. Learn on that until you reach the limits of your abilities and then sell it and get yourself the 2.8 OS version.. I have to say, I really love the OS.. It allows me to hand hold n some really interesting situations.

[kelleyrie]

My Dad has the 2.8 without IS and he wishes he had waited to buy the IS version. It is extremely hard to focus when you zoom out. But I still love it and borrow when I can

Originally Posted by dmann

So I am looking to purchase a Canon 70-200mm lens. There are four options available 2.8 with or without IS and the 4.0 with or without IS. Now I could get the 2.8 without IS or the 4.0 with IS now or wait a year (or less) and get the 2.8 with IS. Obviously the 2.8 IS is the best choice but I want to know from your experiences and knowledge if it is worth the wait and extra price.

Another thing the 2.8 IS is on sale for $2379.00 cdn, good price?

It may be good to know I want this for portraits and my nieces and nephews sports games. Also I am just starting in photography but have hopes of one day making a go at it. However we will see what happens and how good I can get.

Thanks!

This IS in the new 70-200 f2.8 is incredible. I'm not the most stable (physically) person, and I've been able to shoot at 200mm at 1/30th of a second with any blur from camera motion. The IS is awesome.

Realistically, the only I time I use the IS is during weddings, or other indoor events. For sports, your shutter speed would be fast enough (1/250th or less) that IS isn't necessary. For indoor portraits, your flash makes your shutter speed irrelevant. For outdoor portraits, your shutter speed will probably be higher than 1/200th of a second.

But yes, I highly recommend the lens. Very nice image quality.

No experience with the others, though there is a rumor that a new 70-200mm f4 will be coming out in the next couple months.

[DelCan]

SwissJon said it right. I bought a used 70-200 2.8 IS off of a camera forum for $1500 and I love it. I could sell it today and get my money back. You are probably looking at a Mark II and that price sounds about right.

I've read the arguments both ways on the Mark I vs II and if you're just getting started I doubt that you would notice the difference.

You'll want the IS for sports for sure!

[DelCan]

[QUOTE=Photoboothguy;1372517 For sports, your shutter speed would be fast enough (1/250th or less) that IS isn't necessary. [/QUOTE]

I was thinking of indoor sports when I wrote that..

[Tzetsin]

Im going to say what everyone else is thinking... The 2.8 IS ii is way more lens than you need as a beginner. I'll also say that it was way more than i needed when i bought.mine too, but here i am less than a year later an i can push that lens to its limits and then some. I wouldnt waste any money on any of the other lenses, but at the same time, as a begginer, i wouldnt go into debt to get one either. If you can afford it get the 2.8is ii, if you cant get something similar that is around 500 bucks to learn on and save till you can buy it cash. Learning on a lesser lens will allow you to learn how to work around limits, and make the 2.8 is ii even more appreciAted when you do get it.

[dmann]

Thanks for the answers everyone!

I am too nervous to buy second hand although I totally understand why I should.
I think I will save for the 2.8 IS and further my skills in the meantime. If this is the lens everyone says it is it should be worth the wait.

Thanks for all the replys it really helps that I can ask you guys. I don't have any photographer friends and I am always Leary about the sales guys at the camera shops.

[Tzetsin]

Originally Posted by dmann

If this is the lens everyone says it is it should be worth the wait.

I just want to warn you. Its not a magic lens. Your not going to get it, then all of a sudden be a notable photographer.

Its a tool. Its one of the best tools for the job it was "designed" for. Its NOT the best tool for what it was "not" designed for. Also its only as good as the photographer behind it is so you'll still have to understand the exposure triangle and lens effects to use it to its full potential.

[ErikUngerPhotography]

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is an amazing lens. You really can't go wrong with it. Now the questions is do you need to over the non IS or f/4 models? What is it you want to use it for?

I got it primarily for sports. Here I don't need the IS, but I for sure needed the f/2.8. My secondary use was for close wildlife. Here the IS comes incredibly handy. When I was testing it out at the zoo, I shot handheld at 1/60 at 200mm and got away with some pretty good shots.