Canon 70-200 IS or no IS?

[Nick]

As sad as it makes me, I'm in the market for another lens. I loved the Sigma 17-50 I bought but since they can't seem to give me one that works, it's time to move on to something else. The Canon equivalent is $1100+ and so I'm thinking about other options. I was taking my portraits at 50mm so I figure I could get away with shooting them at 70 if I were to pickup the 70-200 to replace it. It wouldn't be good as a walk around of course but at least I'd have something long and really high quality.

So the debate now is whether to get the f4L IS USM or just the f4L USM (No IS). Price difference is significant, $719 vs. $1273. Weight difference is only a couple ounces. There's no way I'd even consider the f2.8 version.

So any thoughts on that? Also considering just going with the 24-105 f4L but that is not wide enough for me to leave it on (crop sensor) and doesn't have the benefit of being extra long for wildlife, etc.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

IS is worth the price difference

 

[neiloro]

IS is worth the price difference

I agree. You gain 3-4 stops. So what you would normally need a 250th for you could hand hold at a. 30th or 15th.

 

[Waynee-ack]

I agree. You gain 3-4 stops. So what you would normally need a 250th for you could hand hold at a. 30th or 15th.

I agree, the IS is worth the extra$$

 

[Nick]

Ugh. How did I know everyone would say go with the $550 more expensive one. Also thinking about just getting the 50mm 1.4 prime ($380). That would satisfy the portrait studio situation but be pretty much useless to me otherwise. I mean really, those that have used a 70-200, how useful is it? Keep in mind, I'm on a crop sensor.

 

[Waynee-ack]

A 50mm prime is on my short list. I want a good wide angle, then a good macro, then I'm going for the 50.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

Ugh. How did I know everyone would say go with the $550 more expensive one.

...because you usually get what you pay for.

Don't skimp on the glass

 

[Bill]

Don't skimp on the glass

I would hardly call that skimping....

If your shooting hand held, in low light, or need the faster shutter? Then go IS. If your using studio lights and shooting long landscapes on tripod go non-IS. 70-200 F4 takes a killer shot but I think you should get a 24-70 F2.8

 

[wes242]

Well I will say I went without the IS and haven't wished that I had it. My uncle has the IS version and I tested it out before I decided. However I did start with the 70-200 f4 and didn't keep it long. I didn't care much for it. I sold it and bought the 70-200 f2.8 non IS and it is the BEST lens I own. The quality out of it I wish came out of all my lenses. However they have come out with some never versions since I got this one and the price of everything has gone up. I got mine in 2005 and love it.

 

[Nick]

Next question...

The 70-200 f4L IS is almost the same price as the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS. My first thought is that the 2.8 is a LOT heavier than the 4...