Canon ( 70 - 200 L 2.8 ) verses ( Canon 70 - 200 L 2.8 IS ) IS means Image Stableizer is it worth the extra $$$$'s
2006-09-09 12:14:39 · 5 answers · asked by James M 1 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
I don't think anyone here can sway you one way or the other. You probably already know all the pros and cons, and in the end it's a personal decision. Just to sum things up:
* The IS version is $560 / 49% more expensive ($1700 vs. $1140 at B&H for the non-import versions.)
* The IS version is heavier (3.2 lb vs. 2.8 lb.)
* The IS version is slightly soft at f/2.8, but otherwise there's nothing to chose from in terms of image quality.
* IS is of very limited value if you're going to use a tripod anyway, or if your shutter time is smaller than the reciprocal (say, 1/300th on a dSLR).
Now... when Canon introduced the 17-55mm with IS, I thought they were joking. Even with a 1.6 focal length multiplier, who needs IS for that range?! But at 200mm (or effectively as much as 320mm), IS becomes a valuable asset... and for me, it fully justifies the extra price.
Just to add to your confusion, have you also considered the new (so new you can only pre-order it at this point) Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS, for $1250?
2006-09-10 20:17:57 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since these are medium to long focal lenght lens, the IS is a good feature. As a rule of thumb, the handheld (i.e. without tripod) shutter speed you can shoot without blurring is 1/(focal length). When shooting at 200 mm, the minimum speed is 1/250 sec. With IS, you can improve this by at least 2 speed step if not 3. That means that you can shoot at 1/60.
At 70 mm, the minimum handheld shutter speed is 1/60. With IS you can go as low as 1/25 or even 1/16
I have a Canon IS lens (although not an L) and I am happy with the flexibility it gives because I always want to use available light.
2006-09-11 00:54:20 · answer #2 · answered by Kermit 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actual have been monitoring the cost of this over a twelve months. the cost of this is all time lowest now. i'm no longer very specific if the cost might nevertheless circulate down. I have been given it for 542 USD 3 months back. the charges of those lens fell after canon introduced some decrease cost. yet even after the decrease cost era is over, the charges have not long previous up.
2016-11-07 00:13:20 · answer #3 · answered by rangnow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, for some people stabilizer worth a lot. In case of expensive 'L' lenses, every step up is pricey.
2006-09-10 10:10:23 · answer #4 · answered by alex_self 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there are a great gap between them ...
Unless you are reaaaaally concern about stableizing ....
2006-09-09 13:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by shady 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋