I'm concerned about the lack of IS on this lens, is it worth the buy or am I better off saving up for the IS?
1611414
I have had both versions of the lens and definitely preferred the one with IS. With that said, the difference in price is significant and the non-stabilized version produces superb images. If you are shooting outdoors with plenty of light it is perfect. If light is an issue when shooting I would definitely save up for the IS version.
1611415
The right answer depends on how often you'll make photos at shutter speed lower than about 0.5/F (i.e from 1/140s for F=70mm till 1/400s for F=200mm).
1611416
IS on a tele is always welcome, but I think that you would feel the difference only on poor light shots, because the vibration. Only if you dont like to use tripods or monods you should go for the IS.
1611417
I've owned this lens for a couple of years now... And honestly I would've liked to save up for the IS.. No mistake it is an excellent lens for no motion images.. Things get blurry when capturing movement in low light.Thinking on selling it as soon as I save up for the IS version
1611418
I haven't had any problems shooting at 200mm without the IS. Including pretty good shots of breaching whales in hawaii from a distance. Definitely worth the price.
796877
In terms of optical quality the lens is soberb, period. Focus maybe an issue becouse of a internal noise that it makes sometimes, direct sound could be a problem. I sugest to you do a test in a store or rent one. I did not make any test myself, in the moment it arrive I make some shooting around the house and start use it. A classic lens for portraits.
462698
In general, the lens will make a much bigger difference in the quality of your photos than the camera body. So, if money is an issue, its always better to go for the cheaper body and spend the money you saved on better lenses.
75925
depends on your expectation. It is not a technically wonderful lens by any means. But i keep it on my old epl1 in the glove box or my coat pocket and use it when an opp presents itself. Its fun. Cheap. And as long as you don' mind the zone focus gets shots i otherwise would not get due to not having a kit with me. Love it these winter months when work kills all my light
1794470
One thing that hasn't been addressed by others, is that the APD version won't work with phase detection autofocus, so not only its it "slower" with light gathering, but also slower with focusing. And it's $500 more. Unless you're shooting in a studio, I don't think most will be interested in this lens.
392884
OK, well here are my thoughts on the kit lens. It is lighter, so for backpacking orhiking it could be a really good thing. As you say, it is only an extra $75 or so,so there isn't much wrong with having it along with a truly fine lens, unless $75makes or breaks your budget. Get the kit lens AND as many other lenses asyou can justify.
2176753
From what I've gathered the IS is needed only if there is low light for the distance shooting. I believe a fill flash would help, but I havent read anyone post anything as far as using fill flash at 200mm without the IS.
876255
You are not looking at very expensive optics here, and you can't compare the performance of this lens to one costing thousands of dollars. That being said however, this lens will perform pretty well shooting the moon. You will find it hard to get perfect focus on infinity. If you have the extender, which will double your length, you will get even closer shots. Also, some people can't stand that this lens is all mechanical, just like the old 35 MM lenses. I love shooting with this thing. You can actually hand hold to get some very good bird shots. I hope this answers your question. Good luck. For the price, you should do okay!
1429333
This is a good lens. If you are urgent to have it for business or travel, I would suggest you to buy it immediately. Otherwise, I would suggest you to buy one during holiday season, e.g., Thanksgiving. This lens is very sharp and its IQ is pretty good to focus on the object. Good luck and enjoy using it.
1794471
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens... » Read More Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended! « Show Less
1398398
Yes. It might be a touch behind on quality, but it is a very good, highly-reviewed lense for a fraction of the price. Very well built.
1790228
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :) I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
2274834
Can't help you out here but I would suspect that the inherent DOF range in kinds of lenses would make it a good choice. You're not auto focusing with video anyway so glass quality and to some extent weight might be your considerations in buying this lens.
666202
I'm sure the only difference is the IS but IS can make a big difference in IQ especially at long focal lengths. Yes it's a lot more money but in my opinion, it's well worth the cost. You cant always shoot at high shutter speeds to avoid motion blur / camera shake
1293197
The IS feature the only real difference. That can be useful depending on the type of photography you're doing. Since it's a prime and not a telephoto lens I personally have never missed having the image stabilization. I do a lot of macro work and use fast shutter speeds.
1526810
I have the Canon, but if you happen to get a good copy of the Tamron, then it's probably a better value. That being said, copy to copy consistency is going to be much better on the Canon side. You're more likely to get a lens with autofocus issues with the Tamron.
1253597
Strictly image quality, Nothing a non professional would notice. The lens is much more sturdy and the IS has saved me on more than one occasion, especially in low light. The IS version is worth it IMHO