70-200mm f2.8 L USM with or without IS ?
 

Hey, I'm going to buy the 70-200mm f2.8.
The lens with IS is a bit more expensive, but is it worth the extra cash or isn't necessary for video purposes while you mostly shoot around a shutterspeed of 50 or more ?

If you are doing handheld without a lot of external stabilizing gear I don't see how you can do without the IS... especially at the longer focal lengths.

Bart, the shutter speed is not relevant in video as it is in stills. You're not trying to freeze a moment, it's more that the shot will potentially be jumping around all over the screen without IS. Having said that in broadcast we've lived without IS for decades without much problem.
Bear in mind that there is also a 70-200 f4 Canon that has better reviews than even the 2.8s.
Steve

I have been looking into a similar issue for the last few weeks, but I'm especially interested in the decision between the 70-200 f4 with IS or the 70-200 f2.8 without IS since they are very similar priced. These are a few of my findings, focussing on the strenghts of both lenses:

Canon 70-200 f4 with IS:
- Newer lens with new optical elements similar the soon to be released 70-200 f2.8 type II
- A tiny bit sharper away from the middle of the frame (see below for comparison, make sure to compare on f4 on both lenses)
- Much lighter (705gr vs. 1310gr) and thus easier to carry and more likely to stay on your camera most of the time

Canon 70-200 f2.8 without IS:
- Older lens that is very popular which still means a fairly high trade in price
- Nicer bokeh (background unsharpness) because of the faster lens speed (f2.8 vs f4), also more control of depth of field
- More consistent in light despersion on the full frame (see Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results for comparison between the two.

For me as a Sony PMW-EX1 user, the filter size also weighs in since the f2.8 is 77mm like the EX1 and the f4 is 67mm which means buying new filters (quite costly since you only want the best on lenses like these)

Also it is important to realize what IS does for you. It will help you to gain a few stops when your hands are a little shaky, it will not however help you to stop action since it will only correct for lens movement, so if you mainly work with a tri or monopod IS won't do much for you and you will greatly appreciate the gain of 1 stop of light

I'm still not sure which one to get but since a day or 2 I'm heavily leaning towards the f2.8 with or without IS (probably without) or save up a few more months for the f2.8 IS type II which is way to expensive IMHO

Hope this helps, am looking forward too more opinions, especially from people that have used more than one of these lenses.

I own a 2.8 non-IS and love it, but as with all things... it boils down to the main question:
What is the primary purpose that you are buying it for?

If you are buying it for photo purposes and need the ability to shoot in low light (say a gym for a b-ball or v-ball game, or theatre for a production) then 2.8 all the way.

If you are general shooting then yeah, you could get away with the f4.

If you are shooting video... stick with a video camera.
I have a 7D and after messing with the video on mine, I bought a XR500V.

Dont have a clue what the actual EXIF would be on the XR500V in video mode, but I have some clean shots with it in photo mode at f1.8 and f2.

If you are shooting on a tripod, IS becomes a non-issue.
If you are shooting on a monopod, IS can help... provided you are really bad off.
If you are shooting with IS and intend on panning after your subject, then one of the newer IS2 lenses will be of more use if you really think you need IS.
If weight is an issue for you (keep in mind that the 2.8L is a 3.5lb lens) then stick with the f4 for about 1/2 the weight.

Either way, a 70-200 f2.8L or f4L will treat you really nice.

That being said, my 2.8L is by far the best money I have spent on glass.
The next best is a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR DI

On another note, I have rented or borrowed and shot with the 2.8L IS, as well as the Sigma and Tamron variants.... gotta say I like where I landed with the 2.8L non-IS.

Good luck.

I purchased a new 70-200mm F4 IS for about $1,200. Nice, fairly compact, wonderful images. Not good in low light. I returned it and was able to get a used F2.8 IS including tripod ring, hood, and a 2x converter for about $1,300 on Ebay. It was in great shape, wonderful images, big and heavy however.

For the longer lenses, I'm not sure if bokeh is an issue, they have pretty shallow DOF anyway, but it's the light sensitivity that's the issue.

The image stablization, I believe is a must for ALL of these lenses, even the shorter ones. I use the IS even on a tripod, it smoothes out the 'micro' shakes that are magnified by a telephoto.

In the same vane, there are a few less expensive Canon EF-S lenses that are quite good, I tried a few of those out as well and they are in the f4 or f5 range but 1/2 the price and weight, if you're looking for an interim lens before the new F2.8 comes out that might be a choice. I might get one of those if I knew I was going to upgrade. I wish there was an EF-S 70-200 but there isn't.

My opinion, any lens, even wider lenses are MUCH more useful with IS, with tele I think it's a must!

Also quite important to some is the fact that the IS lenses are weather sealed where the non IS lenses are not.

Keith, that depends on what you're shooting and how you work.
The longest lenses used by just about anyone are in the wildlife filming business and they've virtually never had IS. One of the current favourites the Canon HJ40 does have IS but you rarely use it on the tripod, except where the subject is still and the camera is locked off. For years we've used lenses of 600mm and more without IS for all the big wildlife projects on TV, and still do with the likes of the Canon HJ18x28 (which goes to 1000mm and has no IS and by far my preferred lens and that of many others).
Handheld it's different, but I think even with IS going over 100mm handheld is a bit iffy.
Steve

I will only use it for filming purposes and mainly wedding productions or productions in which Low light is involved.
Therefor I would prefer the f2.8 and I think it will also give me a much nicer dof.
I never use it handheld. With a tripod, monopod or my own built shoulder-rig

Greg: you said <<If you are shooting on a tripod, IS becomes a non-issue>>
I disagree. The 70-200 with IS set on position '2' really helps remove jitter on a tripod. It's really hard 'in the field', say on a windy day,to get any tripod to be steady enough to not have small amounts of movement. The IS removes that giving a more stable video. This is particularly relevant with the 5d2 and 7d as the camera balance with such a lens is very front heavy.

Hi Steve

Well, this is where I think we disagree somewhat. I think IS can affect tracking a bit, adding latency or just randomness while panning or tilting, and if you have a less than rock-solid tripod or in the wind, and you're at high telephoto, I think you'd just want to have IS as an option. I do a lot of wildlife, but I have smaller tripods in order to be more mobile, and it helps in that case. You're using a Canon HJ18x28 which is going to go on an ENG style camcorder which necessitates a pretty hefty tripod. The Canon 7D mass and volume is in a different class, even with some heavy glass, so you can get away with smaller support, but then might need better IS.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I'd never get a lens for the 7D without IS if I could afford it, and for stills it adds a stop of light sensitivity or more which is helpful.

this might help.
it helped me making decision.

DSLR Lenses, Part 3: IS vs. Non-IS IN[FOCUS]

One thing I have found that as long as the camera is not moving, i.e. stationary hand held, IS is a really big help. As soon as you make the camera move it starts to hurt you. Even on my Tamron 17-50 with VC (their version of IS) Put it on my Black Bird and start walking the image is unwatchable it strobes so bad. Click the IS off and make the same move and smooth as silk.