I am thinking of getting a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L lens for my Canon 30D camera but I was wondering if it is really worth getting the IS version over the NON-IS version.If I am not mistaken,the IS version is almost 30,000.00 more expensive than the NON-IS version.Anyway,if I am not asking too much,for those of you who has had any experiences with both the IS version and NON-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L lenses,what are the advantages of the IS version over the NON-IS version.I understand that one of the advantages of the IS version is that it minimizes camera shake while taking still pictures.How about when taking action sport pictures,shall the IS version still have an advantage over the NON-IS version?For your information,my purpose for getting the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L lens is to take pictures of my daughter's softball games(10:00 AM-3:00 PM)during weekends.Also,I read in some reviews that the NON-IS version produces sharper images and is a faster lens than the IS version?Is this true?
THANKYOU Very Much.

Killer Angel

PS.By the way,in regards to portrait pictures,I intend to use my Canon 24-70mm F2.8L lens.
THANKS.

If your main purpose is shooting your daughter's softball games, go for the non-IS version and save the 30k difference. However if you plan to use it indoors, then IS would give you a good advantage.

I shoot sports so basically I shoot at fast shutter speeds, negating the need for IS. However, I have found IS really helpful when shooting non-action indoors. I am able to shoot at 1/15 using 200mm with the IS version. That alone for me is worth it.

Please note though that the IS version is heavier than the non-IS version.

In what I have seen, the non-IS version and the IS version do not differ in sharpness.

Just my $0.02

I shoot my son's baseball game from 3PM to 5 PM and IS seems to matter in shades where there is no motion probably a good 2 stops at full zoom. I did shoot indoors once when it rained during their practice and like what Nono said, the IS only works with non action.

Good thread since I'm saving up for either of these two lenses. :D

I do have a question... I was thinking that IS can help sports photographers capture action too? Let's say you set your shutterspeed at 1/500 (for insurance in capturing that moment) but it's underexposed. Thus you lower it down a bit to 1/250 given that you are at full zoom (200*1.6 = 320) and since the sport is "slow" enough, you still capture the moments sharply.

Please correct me if I'm wrong though, just wanted to clarify this matter. :)

i have the same bother as well since this lens will probably be my next purchase. to help on your query, people i know from the press (inq, ap, reuters, afp) all have tolde me that IS is virtually useless in their field of work. hope this helps with your decision! :)

John

i have the IS version. it helps me doing dokyu work. it allows me to use a slower shutter so that camera shake can be compensated. pasmado ako ng onti kaya really helps when it's just at 1/60. hope i'm able to help! good luck!

Hmm, two different viewpoints... :D

JP, what kind of dokyu work? Isn't 1/60 too slow in the sense that motion will be blurry?

i have the same bother as well since this lens will probably be my next purchase. to help on your query, people i know from the press (inq, ap, reuters, afp) all have tolde me that IS is virtually useless in their field of work. hope this helps with your decision!

I agree.

You still have to follow 1/focal length if you want to freeze action.

I've owned this lens.

Hmm, two different viewpoints... :D

JP, what kind of dokyu work? Isn't 1/60 too slow in the sense that motion will be blurry?

hehehe mostly talks for the NCCA hehe. so i need to get tight shots of the speakers hehehe. 1/60 is enough to freeze the speaker and the focal length gives me the space so that i won't disturb the delegates listening. hehehe!

Ah okay. Thought you were using it for action-stoppage. Thanks for the info JP.

Thanks for the tip too Dave.

Guess I'll be saving for the non-IS version then. :D

if i was in your place, i'd get the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and spend the saved 30k on a 17-40 f4 L which is a pretty darn fine piece of glass.. what a combo you'll have! +30D? naku! heaven.. haha! that's my opinion :)

John

that's a good option. you'll have two lenses for the price of one. you'll have a good telephoto and a wide angle on. perfect option if you are in a budget.

Haha, I'm quite happy with my 350D. That sure sounds like heaven though... *drool*. One of these days... 70-200 first for my true love, sports. :D

before proceeding, killer angel, can you give us your real name. since code names are not allowed if you noticed.

Killer Angel, i suggest you get the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version if you have the budget. Some hobbyist prefer to take the long route, they start with 4L version, then upgrade to 2.8L (Non-IS) and eventually end up getting the IS version.

Since you already have the 24-70mm 2.8L. At least covered na yun 24mm to 200mm range and both at 2.8 . Now, you only need a wide angle lens, say 16-35mm 2.8L. By the way, you're using a 30D right??? Some will recommend the EF-S 10-22mm, however once you upgrade to full frame, no use ang EF-S lens.

Im using the Non IS....if i need to shoot low light... i use the tripod..IS can't help much with more than 1 sec exposure.. :) imho

ruel

Im using the Non IS....if i need to shoot low light... i use the tripod..IS can't help much with more than 1 sec exposure.. :) imho

ruel

If you have steady hands, the threshold for IS on this lens is about 1/15 or 1/10. In my case I don't have steady hands and found my threshold to be 1/30.

before proceeding, killer angel, can you give us your real name. since code names are not allowed if you noticed.

I'm so sorry.Anyway,how do I change my code name to my real name?
THANKS.

Killer Angel, i suggest you get the 70-200mm 2.8L IS version if you have the budget. Some hobbyist prefer to take the long route, they start with 4L version, then upgrade to 2.8L (Non-IS) and eventually end up getting the IS version.

Since you already have the 24-70mm 2.8L. At least covered na yun 24mm to 200mm range and both at 2.8 . Now, you only need a wide angle lens, say 16-35mm 2.8L. By the way, you're using a 30D right??? Some will recommend the EF-S 10-22mm, however once you upgrade to full frame, no use ang EF-S lens.

i agree. get the IS if you have the budget. that'll eliminate the hassles of selling and buying lenses na naman. that's why when i had the money, bumili na 'ko ka'gad ng 24-70 2.8 & the 70-200 2.8 IS (my 1st L lenses). (i have the 70-300 4-5.6 IS though, when it's sunny.) i believe it's one of the most versatile combo you can get. if you're not shooting sports, puwede mo gamitin sa iba - wedding, portraiture, big products (cars, e.g.), etc...

yes, i read @ fredmiranda.com that the non-IS is sharper daw. i don't know. but for me i can get sharper photos if it's stabilized. i do have steady hands, so maybe i get 4 stops instead of 3 ('wag ka hihinga!). he he.

as for the wide angle, i think the 17-40L f/4 will suffice for me.

hi,
i also shoot my son's baseball games around 3-5pm. i'm using my of lens 70-210mm f/4.0, shoots just fine. but i think if you intend to get one you should get a 70-300 instead since rosario field's bleechers are quite far.

ting

For those of you out there who has had both held the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS version and Non-IS version,how much heavier is the IS version than the Non-IS version?Is the weight difference noticable?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

The weight difference is pretty much noticable. I had the chance to shoot with the two, the IS is just way to heavy especially when mounted on a 1D body.

hey, brod if you got money use it, next time pag wala ka ng money you will have the thoughts of saying sayang sana yun na lang binili ko. Follow your dreams, your hearts and your needs.

Good Luck!!!

Get the IS version.

Asked a gentleman on his purchase of a Fortuner 4x4. Why would he even spend another 500k vs the gas variant 2x4, when both had the same power and has the same fuel consumption. His answer, two points.
1) He can afford it
2) He may not use it everyday, but when he needs it, it's there.

Seems to me that you've got issue number 1 beat. Now, issue number 2 solves itself if you get the IS version (you may not use IS every time, but it's there when you need it most). Get the best you can afford.

BTW, I have the IS version coupled with extremely shaky hands. The IS is a dream if you ask me.

I agree with Nino that the IS version is heavier than the non-IS one. Since you said that you'll be shooting sports, a good and sturdy monopod will come in handy.

I agree with Nino that the IS version is heavier than the non-IS one. Since you said that you'll be shooting sports, a good and sturdy monopod will come in handy.

I agree! just got the 70-200 f/2.8L (non IS) and the monopod is a blessing! so easy to shoot with the monopod. on the other hand.... got to play around with the IS and non IS and it wasn't as heavy as i thought it would be. :)

I agree with Nino that the IS version is heavier than the non-IS one. Since you said that you'll be shooting sports, a good and sturdy monopod will come in handy.

I finally got the 70-200 F2.8L in the IS version.Somebody was selling it slightly used at a good price,75K.By the way,in regards to monopods and heads that can take the load of a Canon 30D camera with battery grip plus a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS lens,what brand and model would you suggest that I get?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

If I'm not mistaken, we can turn off the IS on the lens right? So if you're shooting indoors, turn on the IS. If shooting sports and you mount your cam on your tripod, turn the IS off..

Isn't the IS in the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS the version that can work / detect tripods/non motion?

sorry if im sort of hacking the thread. but im just not impressed with canon. how come they dont introduce the shake reduction feature in their DSLRs like pentax did, knowing that they could easily implement it?

its very neat that instead of spending another 30K to get just ONE specific lens Image Stabilized, with a flick of a button ALL of your lenses will be an IS without spending another cent! well clearly Canon is after the market which they are quite good in doing.

it just saddens me knowing that Canon wouldnt implement that technology in their DSLR in the near future. even if they did im sure itl be VERY expensive.

i hope im wrong though.


*contemplating of taking the jump to the dark side...

sorry if im sort of hacking the thread. but im just not impressed with canon. how come they dont introduce the shake reduction feature in their DSLRs like pentax did, knowing that they could easily implement it?

its very neat that instead of spending another 30K to get just ONE specific lens Image Stabilized, with a flick of a button ALL of your lenses will be an IS without spending another cent! well clearly Canon is after the market which they are quite good in doing.

it just saddens me knowing that Canon wouldnt implement that technology in their DSLR in the near future. even if they did im sure itl be VERY expensive.

i hope im wrong though.


*contemplating of taking the jump to the dark side...

because they already have numerous lens that have IS.

well i guess they said it all na eh, i do have the IS version, the only the i can say if you want it get the best, at the end of the day you don't need to look back and said sayang yun na lang sana.. good luck bro.

because they already have numerous lens that have IS.

And in which case affords us end consumer to actually invest in lenses, not the body.

And in which case affords us end consumer to actually invest in lenses, not the body.

exactly! :)

Yeah invest much MORE in the lens. Instead of investing a winny bit in the body.
so that Mr. Canon will have a bigger pocket in the end of the day. thanks to you.
(sorry for the rant. its just that Canon.. jeez)

think about this....

people change cameras every 2 years...some every time a new model comes out..which is.every 8 months or so.

that's why they are investing in lenses..as many of them can last a lifetime if cared for properly.

how do you know if putting IS in their bodies is just "winny bit" for them? we cannot say that, really.

do you think theyl come up with one camera that has a shake reduction feature then immediately eliminate it in the succeeding ones? cmon man. you gotta be better than that.
look at pentax they are making it a standard for their cameras. if the industry made shake reduction in cameras a standard then you wouldnt have to shell out huge sums to get your lenses IS. think of all of your lenses, how much will it cost you to have each and everyone of them IS? im sure not all of them are even available in IS.

I assume your a real Canon supporter but pls stop putting a blind eye to the fact that a camera w/c can make all of your lenses IS with a flip of a button is much better than having each of your lenses IS for 40-50% more of its price.

now ive officially hacked the thread. i know its inappropriate.
my apologies. this is my last post here. cheers.

I assume your a real Canon supporter but pls stop putting a blind eye to the fact that a camera that can make all of your lenses an IS with a flip of a button is much better than having each of your lenses IS for 40-50% more of its price.


i said "winny bit" in comparison to the amount you have to spend to have all of your lenses IS.
look at pentax do you think it cost them that much to implement the feature? no. not at all.

what's with the high blood? too much cholesterol from holiday season??dont put words in my mouth mister. masyado kang apektado. cheer up!:Shock:

iim not a marketing guru.but i read alot about these companies. a canon supporter? i am not a fan boy.far from it. i hate fanboys who adores their preferred brands as if they own it. lalo na yyung mga nikon vs canon choovaloo.sheesh..as if they own the brands.

i hate many aspects about canon. i wouldn't even buy my first canon cam if not for a very good offer from a seller. and decided to stick with it and shoot photos instead of praising the brand to high heavens.

i know you are coming from a consumer's point of view like i do.....i am a consumer myself. but unfortunately for us, this world is not consumer friendly. capitalists are there and you just have to play with them, being careful not to be their victim. finding your niche and sticking within it might save you from them.

if your niche is those people who would prefer is in their cams, then go there.go treat yourself a pentax.

if you would go to other foreign forums and read and research more, you'll understand..or at least you will know other reasons than yours...rather than attacking what i know.

sinasabi ko lang ang alam ko. no need to get too affected.

Canon CAN afford NOT to put IS in their cams, because people STILL buy (economic forces).... you cant say canon "fools" their buyers because they dont have IS in their cams, canon users are wise enough to know this. I think, before someone invests in a camera, the person checks, double checks, and triple checks the features of the camera he/she would like to purchase, and at the end of the day decides which to buy... IS or NO IS .... I'd like to stretch it by giving an analogy on cars.... in the phils (probably in the early 90's) korean cars couldnt sell even if they are loaded with all the features, airbags, power this, power that vs a japanese brand with simple features (heck, japanese cars then were sold with no power windows)....

well, enough has been said already. i want to comment, pero wag na lang. instead, enjoy na lang ng enjoy ng shoot w/ what we have.

btw, im a subscriber to EOS magazine (quarterly). read Canon's view re Charles B.'s ranting on the IS and then some. if Charles read that, he would've understood their points of view (i hope). :)

I own a 70-200 f 2.8 non IS version. News and PJ are usually what I do and I agree with what John says. I have worked for almost all of the wire agencies and... an IS lens is just a luxury for us and added burden due to it's weight not to mention the 30k which could buy you another good alternative, a 17-40 mm f4 L USM lenswhich is another good lens at a lower price.

I like the blurs at low speed too, You just have to harness it to suit your needs,

well, enough has been said already. i want to comment, pero wag na lang. instead, enjoy na lang ng enjoy ng shoot w/ what we have.

btw, im a subscriber to EOS magazine (quarterly). read Canon's view re Charles B.'s ranting on the IS and then some. if Charles read that, he would've understood their points of view (i hope). :)


How do I suscribe to EOS Magazine?
THANKS.

Michael Y.

sorry if im sort of hacking the thread.

No, you didn't hack the thread. You hijacked it.



but im just not impressed with canon. how come they dont introduce the shake reduction feature in their DSLRs like pentax did, knowing that they could easily implement it?

Neither am I with Pentax. You've bitten into the in-camera IS/OS/VR hype that you don't even know how effective camera stabilization is. So far, the early reports indicate that you only gain 1, maybe 1.5 stops advantage with the technology. Yes, there is no true scientific tests out there, but I can vouch for my Canon IS system. I can shoot 1/6-1/8 sec reliably and easily at 105mm with the 24-105L IS. That's with a 3rd gen IS. Last Sunday, we did a pre-nup shoot and I noticed in my exif that I was shooting at 1/60 at times and not getting any blur from the 100-400L IS at around 150-280mm range. That's a 1st gen IS. It's giving me a 2-3 stop advantage already.

As for wide angles, I have confidence in shooting 1/6-1/15 at 10mm-15mm with my 10-22mm. I don't need IS there. If it goes down to 1/4-1 sec, I bet even IS won't help me. So, wide angles don't benefit much from IS or any stabilzation technology.

So how is in-camera stab going to fare for longer focal lengths? I very much doubt you can get very effective stab with today's tech if you are talking 100mm + range, especially above 200mm in-cam stab. 1 stop may or may not be important, but in-lens stab has already proven itself for 10 years that it can deliver 2-3 or even 4 stops advantage.




its very neat that instead of spending another 30K to get just ONE specific lens Image Stabilized, with a flick of a button ALL of your lenses will be an IS without spending another cent! well clearly Canon is after the market which they are quite good in doing.

With a flick of a button you bought into Pentax's own marketing hype. Or with Sony's.


it just saddens me knowing that Canon wouldnt implement that technology in their DSLR in the near future. even if they did im sure itl be VERY expensive.

It saddens me that people will see the forest for the trees.:(

Canon might implement in-camera IS in the future. Who knows? But I am not concerned Why? In another post elsewhere, I have posted the ff: -- Camera bodies are the accessories of the Lens. In short, buy your system not because of the camera body alone, but more of the lens as a system. Bodies, come and go, but lenses will last longer (yes, I still have an almost 20 year old 50-200L w/c still takes fantastic pictures).

If Canon implements inbody IS, I doubt if it will be very expensive. I doubt if it will be as effective as optical stabs will be either. And most likely, it will for the entry level dslrs, to placate consumers like you who think the way you do, not knowing that stab implemented in lenses are still more superior. If it does so, it does so as a smoke and mirror trick. And in time, somebody with both a pentax and a Nikon with VR or Canon IS lens is going to do a more controlled test and show the true score and unmask the hype.

But If Canon does implement in-body stab, I'd be happy myself. Why? Well, I have a 100 f2.0 usm and I wish it had IS so I can shoot 1/8-1/15 sec with it! I can do it with the other lenses with built-in IS, and I wish I could shoot at f2-2.2-2.5 at 1/10 sec if it had IS or the body has IS. But for 135mm-200mm and up, I think stab in lenses is still better. That's proven already. In-body stab still has to prove itself.


But I am not switching to pentax just because I think Canon is "putting the wool over me" for not having in-camera IS. I am looking at the big picture here. It's not just the body IS I will be anal about if I were you. I'd look at other things in the value chain.

For one, how is the local support? How is Sanly at promoting and even pricing of their dslr lineup? Is it cost effective? A K10d costs about U$900 in the USA. How much is it over here? Is it priced around P50k or so for body too?

Two, how much does the lenses, flash and other accessories cost? Is it also competitive? Or maybe you will save money on the body but it will still kill you in the other depts.

Can you easily sell your lenses in case you outgrow them? Do you have a 2nd market you can tap into in case you want to get used ones? We have that with Canon and Nikon. It was easy for me to sell my 75-300 IS, and/or get 2nd hand lenses for our brands. Can you boast the same?

What if your equipment breaks down? How is Sanly at support if you have problems? I don't think they have their support tech well established here for digital. Correct me if I am wrong. But if you Pentax flash conks out, will you wait months for it to be repaired?

You can poke the same problem with Sony and their dslr with built-in stab. Go ahead buy one but be prepared to pay for P150,000 for a 70-200 f2.8G lens. You can get a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS for about P112,000 mall price. It's about P95,000 at Quaipo. Their 135 f2.8 lens is priced at P80,000.

You can get the famous 135 f2.0L from Canon for U$900. (P45k). Even if you buy it from the mall, I very much doubt it will reach 80,000. Sony's 135 f1.8ZA CZ lens costs 92,000. Yes, you lose 1/3 stop with the Canon and CZ is CZ, so, are you willing to pay another P47k for the Sony 135 lens? Yeah, yeah, yeah, you also have IS because your body has it built in. But really? For P47k more? Even their 135 f2.8 non-CZ costs P80k. Canon's own old 135 f2.8 costs below P20k. And of course, you can get the faster and better 135 f2.0L for P45K. Oh, yeah, oh yeah, you're right -- but I don't have IS to go with that. But really now -- P35k more? And 1 stop slower and not really L class? P80k?

How about a 35mm f1.4G for P90,000? Or the 300 f2.8G for P410,000? The famous ef 300 f2.8L IS costs about U$3,500 only. And don't get me started with Sony's other CZ lenses w/c is also very expensive.

I am not in the mood to do a search, but I don't know if pentax has a 70/80-200 f2.8 version. If they do, let us know what it is and how much it costs. If not, I presume you have to rely on Sigma or Tamron as 3rd party to supply you with this lens. Now, try ordering one from Quiapo! Try and see if Sanly has one right now!

How about a 100-400 or a 500 f4 or some really long stuff. I am mentioning the long lenses because it is these lenses that need stabilization the most. My own take is that I can shoot reliably well at 50mm below without any stab. Sure it will help if you have it, but it's really the long lenses that need it the most. If your chosen camera brand does not have the lenses for those FL, then what use is having a built-in stab? It's like having a gun and you have no bullets!

If The local "exclusive" distributor does not have it or does not carry it, then your potential for growth is limited already. And if you already know what you want, you can't do what you need to do because the lenses or the accessories you need to do your job or your task isn't available.

And if you can pay these exorbitant amounts, will you be waiting forever to get them as the local "exclusive" distributor is so small that it does not want to stock lots of lenses and "accessories."

And I haven't started talking about special lenses here too and other accessories. Do these companies already have a good lineup of PC or TS lenses? Or ring flashes? Or underwater housing and other capabilities?

How about higher pixel count of 16mp or 12.8mp in the camera? You may not need that, but others do. Or a 5fps or 8fps frame rate for those sport or bird shooters?

Or a good AF system, or a superior flash and metering system (like the Nikon). How good are these cameras with built-in stab?

So, you want in-camera stab in exchange for other features sets. You are dissatisfied with Canon for lacking in-body stab. You feel you are being fleeced or cheated.

To charles B,


But you would not mind having no or little support support and other accessories not readily available. You complain about the P30,000 extra that canon charges for the IS in lenses, but you wouldn't mind paying exorbitantly for lenses that don't have IS/VR/OS but costs a lot more in certain instances. You'd rather have in-body stab but don't mind paying really more (P30,000 or more ) for lenses that don't even have it in their brands, or some lens lineups they don't have at all.

So, if you want to be a birder, and you choose Sony for example, best to just buy their SLOW f8 mirror lens if you want a a 400MM or 500mm lens. You can't get a 400mm f2.8 or a 500mm f4 even if it is expensive because Sony does not have one.

Ok. You say, I'll buy 3rd party. Is there a sigma 50-500 or 120-300 or 300-800 or a tamron 200-500mm for Sony? Who are you going to order it from?

Oh, I'll just buy their 300 f2.8G lens for P410,000 and buy their 1.4x TC for P35,000 or 2x TC also for P35,000 to reach 400-500mm or even 600mm. Too bad, I don't think you can buy the tamron or excellent kenko pro dg 1.4x or 2x TC for below P10,000. :(

Hah and I get in-body IS and saved myself money, you say! Cheap no?

But do the math.

For about P460,000 w/c will be the price it will cost you to go Sony for this setup (P410k for 300 f2.8G lens and k10d body). I can get a 400d (10mp, 3fps, anti-dust, etc) or with a 300 f2.8L IS (about P192,000). Heck, I bet, I can even buy a 1D mk2N and the lens and still have change for a 70-200 f2.8L lens!

If I wait 1-2 months, I bet there will be a 1d mk3 with 10-12mp, 8fps, weather sealed, and anti-dust. I bet I can get that new body and the 300 f2.8L IS with the TCs for the same amount! Let's see - can your k10d do 8fps? How about 5fps?

And the clincher -- Is in-body stab really that effective on longer focal length lenses? Your camera body better be able to adjust that shake because at 400mm-500mm , in-body stab is going to shake, rattle and roll controlling that vibration from all sorts!!! You can get away with in-body IS for sub 100mm, is my guess. But past that, I think in-lens stab is better.

I bet a Nikon system (d80 or d200) with a similar lens will cost much lower. I wonder if Pentax can give you the same lineup? Help me out here!



Hmmm. You've really ridden into the marketing hype. You've flagged their bus, it stopped for you, you rode it, and asked for a ticket too!

I hope it takes you to where you want to go photographically, speaking.



i hope im wrong though.

Most likely you are.



*contemplating of taking the jump to the dark side...
Please do. We'd love to see you spend less money.:)

hi everyone. lets say that yr using the lens for almost everything like wedding, portrait, lanscape and sports, wat will i buy the non-IS or the IS version?:)

ser mel...puso mo...hehehehe...baka masabihan ka ring CANON SUPPORTER...herhehrerh.the kid is gone :lol:

Thank you very much indeed. Im quite flattered you took the time to write all of that just for me. :)
It is very enlightening. (no im not being sarcastic) I seriously do believe in most of what you wrote.

But im afraid most of the argument doesnt apply to me since i aint planning to be a bird shooter nor I am in the Philippines.

I just saw that Pentax can fit MY own needs.
I am speaking for myself when i wrote those words not in behalf of the whole photographic community.
Apologies if that bit wasnt clear.

Im a prime lens guy, though some of you may not believe it but Pentax is known to make some of the best prime lenses in the world.
And no, it doesnt sell as much as the Canon L lenses.
Not to mention buying those good ol classic lenses 2nd hand here in Europe is unbelievably cheap.
With all this in mind i just cant help but to think twice.

As im trying to point out its a case to case basis. its not a one size fits all.

I aint trying to debate that Pentax is a better brand that Canon.
Canon is the market leader by a long mile and its there for good reasons.
They are superb and comprehensive indeed.
It is the system to go for for most but not all photographers.


ser mel...puso mo...hehehehe...baka masabihan ka ring CANON SUPPORTER...herhehrerh.the kid is gone :lol:
im sorry Glenn if i got to you i guess i came on too strong. Didnt intend to.
Dont worry i wont stoop down.

God bless everyone.

Thank you very much indeed. Im quite flattered you took the time to write all of that just for me. :)
It is very enlightening. (no im not being sarcastic) I seriously do believe in most of what you wrote.

But im afraid most of the argument doesnt apply to me since i aint planning to be a bird shooter nor I am in the Philippines.

I just saw that Pentax can fit MY own needs.
I am speaking for myself when i wrote those words not in behalf of the whole photographic community.
Apologies if that bit wasnt clear.

Im a prime lens guy, though some of you may not believe it but Pentax is known to make some of the best prime lenses in the world.
And no, it doesnt sell as much as the Canon L lenses.
Not to mention buying those good ol classic lenses 2nd hand here in Europe is unbelievably cheap.
With all this in mind i just cant help but to think twice.

As im trying to point out its a case to case basis. its not a one size fits all.

I aint trying to debate that Pentax is a better brand that Canon.
Canon is the market leader by a long mile and its there for good reasons.
They are superb and comprehensive indeed.
It is the system to go for for most but not all photographers.



im sorry Glenn if i got to you i guess i came on too strong. Didnt intend to.
Dont worry i wont stoop down.

God bless everyone.

The reason why I responded so long a write is because your POV is parochial. It focuses only on one feature as if it will break the world if you don't have it. There's also the issue as if Canon is hoodwinking people purposely. Well in a sense, they are because they do leave out certain features. But look at it from the standpoint of Pentax.

You don't have your own sensor, much less and R&D for it. You don't have the advanced technology for AF, IS on lenses, etc. You only have excellent optics. So, how will you compete with a Canon or a Panasonic w/c has the most R&D and capability to produce large quantities and have the distribution and marketing prowess to boot?

Well, you parlay your lenses and you introduce certain features that the competitor will likely not have or will use. One of them is in-body stabilization. But really, you know you are at the mercy of Sony for sensors. What if they limit you their sensors later on? Where to go now?

Even worse, and this is just speculation so don't think it is gospel truth, maybe Pentax is surging aggressively to get better figures in its stocks for an eventual sell off to maybe Samsung. Once it's no longer in Pentax' hand, like Minolta, you don't know what the acquiring company is going to do with your lenses, electronics, etc.

You see that is part of my big picture look and I'd be concerned about that because the company can close shop just like that. it's not the first time. And the acquiring firm is not the sold firm, so don't expect the same core culture to permeate. it's going to march in its own drums.

Do not forget that today's cameras are not mechanical and chemical in creating the image. They are electronic and software. This is why the Leica's, the Carl Zeis, Pentax, w/c make excellent lenses/optics find it hard to compete. The source of the competitive advantage is no longer with sunset industries like chemicals and metalurgy and glass. Even the avowed Pentax sensor with image stabilzation in the body is likely licensed by Pentax from somebody else (I could be wrong here but I doubt it). If that is so, then what prevents Olympus, or even Canon from licensing it and appropriating it? So, where is the competitive advantage now if the competitor has it too?

I am glad you realized that no one system fits all. It is really a matter of taste in most situations. In the Phils, if you were here, I'd be weary of getting a pentax dslr. Again, not that it is bad. In fact, I can understand many people's excitement over it. But for me, especially here where we are, the entire forest is not conducive to getting one or owning one, especially if you are a semi-pro like me.

In the end, I don't really care what people buy? It's not my camera and it's your happiness. As they say, whatever rocks your boat, whatever turns you on!

But I don't think it's fair to say that Canon is lame for not having in-body stabilization. As if there is a conspiracy to deprived you of a serious feature. It is very a narrow way of looking at things.

Each company is making a play for the lead. Margins for P&S are very slim. It's the dslr market that still has lots of elbow room for growth and profits. So, each one is moving and doing their stuff to get your money.

If you like Pentax, or Sony, go right ahead, get one! It is a good camera. But since I am here in the RP, I'd check out supplies of lenses, their prices and how good the local distributor is in supporting me.

Peace.

hi everyone. lets say that yr using the lens for almost everything like wedding, portrait, lanscape and sports, wat will i buy the non-IS or the IS version?:)

Hannibal,

Get the IS version.

I'm saving up for mine. That's about 2 years from now, unless I win the lotto or something! :Grin: Maybe, 1 year if I settle for the 70-200 f4L IS.

.

Lol. Thanks for your kind concern. Appreciate it man.

peace charles..let's just go and do some shooting.

thanks mel!:)