Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 22, 2008, 9:43 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default

should I buy the canon 70-200 non IS , i cant afford the IS model, or is there another good alternative, I need a fast lense , I shoot everthing sports ,people, to wild lilfe, I know that 200 is not long enought but I cant afford to get a 600mm lense, I previously owned a sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO, it just was not fast enough,
thanks for your help
john
iamabusyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 22, 2008, 10:40 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Default

The only reason that I chose the IS over the non-IS was because I have a disability and really need the IS for stability.

However, it's a heavy lens and at times, I use a tripod. If using the tripod, it is recommended to turn off the ISfor crispy clear photos.

I learned the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens through a friend that purchased this lens to mainly shoot sports. At the beginning, he had the IS on and had good result. Then, he tried with the IS off and still got good result with sports shots.

So basically, if you have good steady hand, you probably can get by with the lens without the IS feature and if most of the time, you use a tripod/monopod, then, you wouldn't need the IS lensneither.

The IS is also a bit heavier than the non-IS.

If you're still not sure, I'd suggest you go to a camera store and snap some photos (free hand) with both lenses. Bring your own camera and memory card so you can check the total weight and the result when you get home.

Good Luck!
ntt_hou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 10:09 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

It will depend on the sport if the 200mm is going to be long enough but most of us shooting sports start with the 70-200 f2.8 range lens. I personally have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS as I shoot weddings as well as sports so the IS feature comes in handy for the former.

Wildlife becomes a harder problem and I usually go for my Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 with a 2x TC. I've used the 70-200mm with a 2x TC and that works well too.

Now for people photography this is a lovely lens and I'm sure it won't disappoint. Here is a shot from a recent party I was covering.


Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 10:56 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Yep, tough call. As you already noted, 200mm wont be very good for wildlife. Great for people but bad for wildlife. Whether or not it's good for sports depends on the sports and the camera body you're using.

Depending on those answers there may be a better allocation of that $1100 that could get you better results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2008, 5:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Marc H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130
Default

Ever thought about the canon 100-400 L IS, instead of the 70-200?

For most (outdoor) sports and wildlife a fantastic lens. A bit bigger than the 70-200.




Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2008, 11:26 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Bigfootpete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 164
Default

I've just ordered the non is F4L model - pick it up tomorrow!

F4 at 200mm will be good enough for most shots unless it is quite dark, that's when the tripod will kick in...Or you could get a mono just for the lens (also need to get the collar though.)
Bigfootpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2008, 7:59 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9
Default

^ I wish I could get away with the f4 and save some money. Unfortunately I think the f2.8 is what's going to give me the best results for ice hockey.

Love to see some pics.
MurphyJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2008, 4:11 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I don't have any samples of Ice Hockey, but here is some Basketball http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82taken with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS. I agree that f4 is not going to cut it for ice hockey or other indoor sports.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2008, 4:17 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9
Default

Nice shots. What distance were you from the action?
MurphyJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2008, 4:31 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Thanks. A few meters behind the sideline, just to keep out of the way of the coaches.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:47 AM.