# Canon lenses



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

Patrick, are you listening?  

I think I'll probably spring for a 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L soon.

Concerning the 70-200. I'm envisioning taking lots of sports/activity photos in the future with 2 kids in the mix now. Will the IS help me with action shots, or does it prove to be unneccessary or even a hindrance somehow? Just wondering if I should lay out the extra $500 or so for the IS lens.


----------



## kjaane (Mar 25, 2006)

IS is great for night shots, inside shots, and stage performances when you cant use a flash.

both the 24-70 and the 70-200 are great lenses, and the wide aperture helps the photos come out clearer as well.

as for your question, it depends on what you're going to be shooting. if its outside sports/activities, ull be fine without the IS. if you're going to be doing inside stuff that you cant use a flash for (small children sometimes get a little freaked out by a bright flash, and im assuming your "in the mix now" means you have a new ultra-mini)

if u have the cash, get the IS. the only hindrance is to your wallet.


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

atyclb said:


> Patrick, are you listening?
> 
> I think I'll probably spring for a 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L soon.
> 
> Concerning the 70-200. I'm envisioning taking lots of sports/activity photos in the future with 2 kids in the mix now. Will the IS help me with action shots, or does it prove to be unneccessary or even a hindrance somehow? Just wondering if I should lay out the extra $500 or so for the IS lens.


I highly recommend finding a camera store where you can handle the 70-200 IS on a camera body and also the 70-200 F4. There is a significant difference in size and weight - both have superb image quality but if you can live with the F4 it's way more comfortable and a whole lot less expensive.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

ki'm definitely planning on going to a store to check them out in person...I have no experience with lenses this substantial. I need to know what I'm getting into.

and yes, I plan to take some classes too


----------



## SoCaLE39 (Nov 19, 2004)

My vote for the IS as well. I have some friends who currently have the non-IS and they are looking to switch. I figure if you are going to spring for the lens might as well spend the extra $$$ to get the IS!


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

SoCaLE39 said:


> My vote for the IS as well. I have some friends who currently have the non-IS and they are looking to switch. I figure if you are going to spring for the lens might as well spend the extra $$$ to get the IS!


I have IS on a couple of my lenses and it isn't a gimmick, it works. Having said that, the 70-200 F2.8 IS is a big heavy lens and you need to be sure you're comfortable hauling it around. I went back and forth between it and the F4. The money was not the deciding factor at all, it was the size and weight. If a person "is" comfortable with the larger lens then by all means get it. Think 7-series versus 3-Series as an analogy.

(to the point above about people getting the F2.8 non-IS, well that's a tad foolish IMO, if you're going to carry that sucker around you sure as well should have the IS)


----------



## SoCaLE39 (Nov 19, 2004)

^^^ funny you say that cause i couldn't agree more about the weight. At first the overall weight almost seems too much, however after some use it isn't much of a problem and you get used to it. The first time i shot using an IS lens was with a D2X at an AMA Superbike race at fontana.......needless to say i dont think i got many images centered


----------



## bdougr (Mar 8, 2005)

The image stabilization also helps when panning the action on the track
when panning the lens disables the IS in the horizontal plane
allows you to get some slow shutter speeds
1/50sec


----------



## SoCaLE39 (Nov 19, 2004)

I found that when i was shooting AMA Superbike practice, at 12-1:30 best results were using a shutter speed of around 1/160. Unfortunately my past work has the images, but the overall clarity was perfect yet still had great motion blur of the background


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

Definitely get the IS version. In addition to the reasons that others had already stated, an IS/L lens will hold value better than the non IS version. When you buy this lens, watch out for the "milky way" - it's a common problem with versions of this lens that had been manufactured in late 2005. At the camera shop, look through the lens against a light source (shine a flash light through the front of the lens), and watch out for "bubbles" or stuff that looks like dust on the mount side of the lens. My copy was fine, but two of my friends had theirs serviced by Canon. Canon is aware of this problem and supposingly it has already been fixed.

The IS will not help you freeze the action of your subjects, so it may not necessarily be very helpful in shooting your kids in outdoor sports. However, it will definitely helpful in situations like shooting your kids in a chior in an indoor auditorium, where you will be sitting far away and have to depend on natural light.

What kind of camera do you have? If you have a 1.6x crop camera, you may consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead of the 24-70L.


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

I have the 70-200 f/4L and it rocks. I am sure the 2.8 is even better but had to draw the line somewhere.:eeps: Does anyone have experience with the new 17-55? I have the 17-40 but at times it not quite fast enough.


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

vexed said:


> I have the 70-200 f/4L and it rocks. I am sure the 2.8 is even better but had to draw the line somewhere.:eeps: Does anyone have experience with the new 17-55? I have the 17-40 but at times it not quite fast enough.


The 70-200 F4 does rock. The F2.8 IS is faster but it ain't better - not image quality wise. Why my original suggestion to try both in hand before deciding is important.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

vexed said:


> I have the 70-200 f/4L and it rocks. I am sure the 2.8 is even better but had to draw the line somewhere.:eeps: Does anyone have experience with the new 17-55? I have the 17-40 but at times it not quite fast enough.


The UPS guy just showed up with my new 17-55 2.8 IS.. I'll post some pix later.

I'm trying to decide between the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS. I like the "L" because, well, it's L, built like a tank, earns respect from your camera-snob friends and super sharp. But the IS is pretty good too because it's like 95% as sharp as the 70-200 f4, has IS, goes longer and is less conspicuous. Can't really go wrong either way, I suspect...

I love the 70-200 2.8 but I don't think I want something that big, heavy and conspicuous.


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

AK said:


> The UPS guy just showed up with my new 17-55 2.8 IS.. I'll post some pix later.
> 
> I'm trying to decide between the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS. I like the "L" because, well, it's L, built like a tank, earns respect from your camera-snob friends and super sharp. But the IS is pretty good too because it's like 95% as sharp as the 70-200 f4, has IS, goes longer and is less conspicuous. Can't really go wrong either way, I suspect...
> 
> I love the 70-200 2.8 but I don't think I want something that big, heavy and conspicuous.


:yikes: Please post some pix, but I think the 17-55 is a dream for me for a while. What about the 70-200 and a teleconverter. On my XT with the crop it is really a 100-320 roughly, I do get a kick when I see a news photog with one of those 600 bazookas.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

vexed said:


> :yikes: Please post some pix, but I think the 17-55 is a dream for me for a while. What about the 70-200 and a teleconverter. On my XT with the crop it is really a 100-320 roughly, I do get a kick when I see a news photog with one of those 600 bazookas.


Okay, I took a few pix with the 17-55 tonight.. This lens is sharp  This is with a Rebel XT, btw.

Click here.
Handheld, 1/15 sec: here.
1/13: here.
1/13: here.


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

AK said:


> Okay, I took a few pix with the 17-55 tonight.. This lens is sharp  This is with a Rebel XT, btw.
> 
> Click here.
> Handheld, 1/15 sec: here.
> ...


Looking good! Do you have a way to host the uncompressed files? Files shrinked and compressed for the internet always look sharp.

Don't get the 70-300. Look at this: http://www.pbase.com/avandel/canon_ef_70300mm_f456_is_usm_nondo This is a known problem for this lens and it is confirmed by Canon. I am not sure if they have a fix for this yet. Also, the zoom mechanism seems to be pretty loose (at least on the two copies that I had played with), and if you let the lens hanging and pointing downward, the lens will extend by itself.


----------



## Galun (Aug 14, 2002)

btw, here's an interesting site.

Feel like being ripped off by Canon because you don't get a lens hood with that $700 non L lens? Here's your solution! http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

Very nice:thumbup: If I did not have the 17-40 I could maybe justify it but it is much faster and.......:eeps:


----------



## P.Chas (Nov 25, 2005)

Why this obsession with zoom lenses?.

They are bulky, heavy, and "slow" unless you are willing to pay $$$ for an acceptably
large aperture, in which case they are even more unwieldy.

Then there is the distortion (both barrel and pin-cushion) evident at the extremes of
the focal lengths.

If you want quality then it has to be "prime" lenses, 24mm, 50mm, and 150mm should
cover most of your photographic needs.

I have recently purchased some vintage medium-format folding bellows cameras, and
the margin by which they outperform even the most expensive 35mm cameras is quite
startling. It certainly makes me wish that I hadn't pumped £8/9k into my 35mm system,
and had bought the Mamiya 7 11 medium format rangefinder instead.

BTW it is interesting to note that the major manufacturer 35mm equipment is much
cheaper in the US than in the UK, whereas with medium format the situation is reversed.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

Galun said:


> Looking good! Do you have a way to host the uncompressed files? Files shrinked and compressed for the internet always look sharp.
> 
> Don't get the 70-300. Look at this: http://www.pbase.com/avandel/canon_ef_70300mm_f456_is_usm_nondo This is a known problem for this lens and it is confirmed by Canon. I am not sure if they have a fix for this yet. Also, the zoom mechanism seems to be pretty loose (at least on the two copies that I had played with), and if you let the lens hanging and pointing downward, the lens will extend by itself.


I don't have those originals posted to the web at the moment but here's a quick shot I took a couple minutes after taking it out of the box. This is directly out of the camera.

I'm aware of the portrait-orientation issue with the 70-300. Most of what I've seen says it only affects stuff at 200+ (which is beyond the range of the 70-200 F4L anyway). Canon acknowledged the problem and I'm waiting to see what their response is before I do anything.


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

P.Chas said:


> Why this obsession with zoom lenses?.


Convenience. You know us Americans are lazy  I agree with you though that primes are great. I own a 50mm 1.4 myself. I just don't know how much more use it will see now that I have the 17-55, which frankly is just as sharp.


----------

