View Single Post
Old 08-12-2009, 10:03 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,841
Chris, I had the 70-200 2.8L IS. Wonderful lens. Don't let anyone tell you that IS makes no difference. It most certainly does. But let me add some thoughts based on my experiences with it.

It depends what you want to shoot with it, as to whether you will gain any benefit from both the f/2.8 and/or the IS. It's a whole lotta money more than the f/4 version and the non-IS versions.

I actually sold mine. Found I wasn't using that focal range enough to warrant around $2k just sitting in my camera bag.

My brother has the 70-200 f/4 non-IS version and I've used it quite a bit. It's sharper, smaller, lighter, cheaper - by some $1500! If I was to buy this focal range again, I'd definitely be going with the f/4 non-IS. But that's for my style of photography, I don't use it that often and when I do, I won't be needing f/2.8.

Everyone one is different, with different needs. It's up to you to make the decision on whether you need f/2.8 etc. But tell ya what, that $1500 or so bucks can buy a lot of other glass and goodies!

Just my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote