I have been saving up to buy a Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS lens and was wondering if the IS is worth the extra $ or can I buy a lens without it, and spend the extra $ on a extra lens like the 17-40mm?
Asked
Active
Viewed 36 times
1
-
It's not really the question you asked, but the Canon 70-200/2.8 without the IS is an older-generation lens. While that series has always been an excellent performer, I'm told that the II version is much-improved, so there's a second reason to wait to buy the IS version. If it were me looking to save money, I'd instead be looking at the 70-200/4, on the grounds that I don't need f/2.8, and would like to save the weight. Certainly at the wide end in the 17-40 you're looking at, f/2.8 is questionable, but it's not so easy with a lens so perfectly suited to portraiture and such. Good luck! – Warren Young Oct 03 '15 at 18:11
-
Oh, and if the alternative to the Canon lens was one of the third-party 70-200/2.8s, I'd say go for the Canon, if you can. There really is a performance difference, particularly in things like AF speed, durability, etc. I had the Tokina 70-200/2/.8 for a time, and have a similar-class Sigma prime still, and they really are not in the same class as the Canon lens, in terms of lens body features. Optically, maybe close, but that only helps after focus is achieved, which is simply faster and easier with the Canon. – Warren Young Oct 03 '15 at 18:16
-
1@WarrenYoung Might want to specify with the 70-400/4L whether you mean the newer IS or older non-IS version. :) – inkista Oct 04 '15 at 02:44