Lens Question

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by jpgarnier, Jun 13, 2003.

  1. jpgarnier

    jpgarnier Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    I'm thinking about purchasing a 70-200mm 2.8 Canon lens and wanted to know if anyone had any expeirence with image stabalizer lenses?

    The image stablizer 70-200mm is about $500.00 more than just the regular lens. Is it worth it to spend the extra money?

    Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

    JP
     
  2. Loose Gravel

    Loose Gravel Member

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Barbar
    I understand the image stabalizer buys you about 1 stop of shutter speed. If you need that stop, then the $500 is worth it.
     
  3. bmac

    bmac Member

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Just realize that this lens weighs more than my entire Nikon kit. It is a beast.
     
  4. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,940
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I haven't used one myself, but from results I've seen by others, it's pretty impressive.
     
  5. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    JP,
    My wife owns the original Canon 80-200 f 2.8. Brian is right, its a monster, but it's also pretty sharp.
    My personal preference would be to buy an 85 f1.8 for the signifcantly closer (portraiture) focusing and lens speed and a smaller 200 f2.8.
    My predjudice aside, many of the guys at my local camera store are into Canon and are bemoaning the fact that their 80-200s don't have IS. They claim you get a real 2-3 stop improvement on the low end shutter speed.
    I think if you're inclined to do hand held shooting, the IS version is the way to go. You'll forget the price differential shortly after the purchase and be very happy with the improved functionally of the lens as the years roll on. IS seems to be a really significant step in lens evolution.
    take care,
    Tom
     
  6. jpgarnier

    jpgarnier Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Tom

    Thanks for the advice... I was looking for a good all around zoom at the legnth. I like your suggestion of two lenses but would prefer to have just the one 70-200mm.

    So how does your wife like th orinal lens?

    JP
     
  7. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    JP,
    She LOVES it. And usually uses it at the longer end of the zoom range, so the close focusing limitation (which I think has been addressed in the newer versions) is not an issue for her. the lens allows her to obtain pictures a cut above her friends with normal 28-105 zooms and the speed of the lens lets her cover any situation with 400 speed film. When we go on vacation, I usually bring my fuji 690 rangefinder and joke that my 6x9 is lighter than her 35mm. She is generally considered by other tourists as the "serious" photographer and my camera isn't given a second look.
     
  8. jpgarnier

    jpgarnier Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Tom

    Glad to hear your wife love the lens... I've been readng up on IS lens and thinking that might be the way to go.

    JP