MARINERMAGNUM

[WCS]

MM,

I caught your question to me in the for sale sub-category about whether I regretted not getting IS with my 70-200L f/2.8 lens. I have no regrets. I use the lens mainly for sports and portraits. With indoor sports, I like to try to keep my shutter speeds as close to 1/500 as I can (light permitting). My goal is to stop the action and slower shutter speeds will only result it blurred action. Outdoor sports are not much of an issue, unless it is at night. Again, slow shutter speeds are not an option. Most of my serious portrait photography relies on the use of a tripod, so no need for IS there. There are occasions when I take snapshots, etc, but for that I usually use my 17-50mm Tamron. I have used the 70-200 for BIF shots at closer range with good results. So to sum it up...I felt that IS was something that would be nice to have, but not necessary and not worth the extra $500 it would have cost. Your shooting needs may be entirely different than mine and you may find the IS is worth it. I love it on the 100-400L that I have.

[Dbl]

I'll add as well since I own both the IS and non-IS version. I have seen no difference in sharpness between the two, some claim the IS is slightly sharper and I've seen some tests that show slight improvement...but I haven't seen the difference.

I use the IS version for my portrait work for sports I use both but with the IS switched off. I see a slight slow down on focus speeds with IS on, but again that is on a 1-series camera. On my 20D and 30D I don't see much difference.

For me since I shoot sports if I only had one it would be the non-IS. Wedding dudes like the IS version because they can shoot it low light. The higher shutter speeds associated with sports and outdoor work really negate the need for IS.

Something was mentioned about a tripod for best results and I can say that is not true at all. This lens produces excellent sharpness handheld with good shooting technique. It is not as sharp as the 300/2.8 but that is one of Canon's finest and really comparing a prime to a zoom is not fair.

I have used the IS maybe three or four times on my 300 but again that is how I use the lens, fast shutter speeds.

[finnbay]

I concur with what's been said. I have the IS version and the only time I have used it was during a wedding ceremony where flash is not allowed.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I appreciate all the feedback!

My dilemma is that I sold my 17-40L to a relative,now I want another one. I have enough saved to either get the 70-200 IS alone or the non IS and a 17-40L. Tough decision. I can see where the IS would come in handy at family gatherings and concerts and such.

[Steve Foss]

Technique will overcome lack of IS. How can you do without a wide angle?

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Steve you are right. I remember using the old 75-300's with no IS and shooting at full zoom handheld,and I never seemed to have an issue with soft shots. Must have been all that .22 shooting growing up! Steady,and squeeze the trigger. I don't know why I sold the 17-40 to my cousin. I guess it was because he was borrowing it so much I said "why don't you just gimme $600 and you can keep it". And he wrote out a check.

I think the 17-40,70-200 2.8, and the 100-400 should suit me for a good long time. It seems like a good proven lineup.

[Steve Foss]

 Originally Posted By: MARINERMAGNUM

I think the 17-40,70-200 2.8, and the 100-400 should suit me for a good long time. It seems like a good proven lineup.

I made almost all my images you see on the Web site with either the 17-40 or 100-400. Those two lenses alone can offer almost all a nature photographer needs if dedication and technique are emphasized.

I added the 100 macro last summer (love it!) and of course have sold the 100-400 in favor of the 400 f5.6L, 70-200 f2.8L and 1.4 TC.

Equipment changes, but as so often said -- equipment doesn't take photographs, photographers do, and I know that three-lens combo of yours is a deadly and versatile one. And it's in good hands!

[Dbl]

 Originally Posted By: stfcatfish

Technique will overcome lack of IS. How can you do without a wide angle?

Boy is that ever true!