Will I regret not going with the IS?
Rocketman766
Registered Users Posts: 332 Major grins
I am getting ready to finally purchase my 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and I can't decide if I should go all out and get the IS or save the money and not get the IS. I CURRENTLY am using a Xsi body (will eventually upgrade to a full frame) and I mainly shoot indoor sporting as well as outdoor sporting. I understand that while shooting the sporting events, I don't use the IS function, but is there another lense under $300-$400 that will get the same results with IS to take the place of that function? Hope that made sense, not to replace the 70-200, just use when I would normally want IS. I have the money for the IS model, but that would take the entire budget. If I go with the non-IS, that leaves some money for other goodies.
0
Comments
Difficult decision, huh?
buy whatever yu can and use it for what you want, doesn't matter if you have IS version or not, you should use either for what you want, just i went with IS because i know myself that i may end up in some situations where i will use slower speed [like 1/25, 1/10, 1/30-1/50] at the focal end 200mm, there i will see shaking and blurring more than at 70mm, so to be on safe side i just went with IS version and never look back.
Many people saying that f4IS is sharper, so you will have IS and cheaper than f2.8 version, but i can see where someone needs f2.8 to use, so if you can afford f2.8 IS then go for it, no regret at all, i bought it since 2006 and it never disappointed me and i never looked at another one like f4 IS or so.
Given the choice between the f/4 with IS or the f/2.8 without IS, I'd take the f/4.
NEVER try to save money on a lens. Speaking from experience, it only costs more in the long run.
It depends on the sporting event. Keep in mind that the IS has a "panning" IS feature, where it helps you follow subjects while panning.
Personally, I'd go with the IS, unless you do most of your shooting on a tripod.
The IS can get 1 - 3 step advantage, it means I can shoot it at 1/100 speed or below if necessary.
Just for sharing, the 70-200 F2.8 IS can work well with the 2X TC. So I can do a 400 mm handheld.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I later purchased an EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM for travel and daytime events.
The faster aperture is definitely preferred for indoor and night sports but I still believe that IS is not that great for unpredictable, fast action sports. A tripod is much better and a monopod is a fairly acceptable compromise.
Unfortunately the Canon XSi is an entry level body and lacks the AF section to make a very good low-light platform, much less rapid action sports. While you might be OK to just shoot the heck out of the games I do think you should rent or purchase a 1D MK II/IIN/III for any important games to optimize both shooting rate and keeper rate. An f2.8 or faster aperture is still indicated regardless and the 70-200mm is a good general purpose sports range.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have decided on getting the NON-IS version after reading responses and comparing photos I have taken with both versions. My next question is about the body. I have started to pick up a few more gigs and selling a few more photos, not quite enough to rush out and pick up a 1D MK III yet, but was wondering how much of a mistake it would be for me if I picked up a used 1D. The price is right and allows me to get the lens and this body right now. I read some reviews on it and it seems to have a better AF and with 8fps, seems right in line with my indoor sports. This will only be until I make enough to pick up the 1D MK III and then maybe use as a backup. Should I even grab one? With my Xsi being a begginer body, will I notice a difference? Also, is the raw format the same? (dumb question..) I like the firewire option too..(mac user).
As far as indoor lenses, in addition to the 70-200, I heard thru the rumor mill that I was getting a 135mm f/2.0 for my birthday, and I have the 100mm f/2.0 already.
I love the IS feature of my 24-105, and only wish they had IS on the 24-70. I think we all take it for granted. Yesterday, I was shooting a town-hall event with a non-IS lens and I couldn't tell you the number of times I was at 1/25, 1/30, 1/40 or 1/50 and wished I'd had the added feature of IS. At longer focal lengths such as the 70-200 provides, I can only imagine how useful anti-shake would be. For a difference of a few hundred bucks (which you'll enjoy now, but likely not notice long-term) I would go IS all the way.
(shoot first, then ask questions)
www.cdub.ca | www.cdubphoto.smugmug.com | Twitter | Canon 5DII + Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 580EX II, Gitzo GT1541 + Acratech GV2L
If sports is your only subject, then MAYBE the f/2.8 non-IS might be a good choice. However, except for professional sports photographers, most of us use our lenses for varied types of subjects. You MIGHT use a monopod shooting sports which would give some help.
Actually, I can hand hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than I could hand hold the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens despite that lens' one stop advantage.
Using the IS, I can hand hold the 70-200mm f/4L IS (at 200mm) using 1/60 second @ f/4 and expect close to 100% sharp imagery. I can hand hold that lens using 1/30 second @ f/4 with a smaller but still respectable % of keepers.
In equivalent light levels the exposures with the f/2.8 lens wide open would be 1/120 and 1/60 second. I could not expect 100% sharpness hand holding the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens cranked out to 200mm using 1/120 second and I could probably get no sharp images shooting at 1/60 second.
The one-stop advantage between f/2.8 and f/4 is not a panacea. It will simply allow you to double your shutter speed. When doubling the speed is still too slow, then you need IS or the ability to crank up your ISO - preferably both.
By the way, in response to "professional", neither the 75-300mm IS nor the 70-300mm IS has a wide enough aperture (they are both variable aperture lenses) or fast enough auto-focus to be used as a lens pimarily for sports photography.
The older 5D has noise free up to ISO 640. the MKII can do much better job.
IS is not much use in broad daylight. Any lens can do well under the blue sky. The photography challenge is to manage the unfavorable light source such as in-door, dim light, night shots or back-lights. I feel IS is good to have but not 100% critical, it is depend on what to shoot.
As a lazy travel photographer, I don't usually bring along the tripod or pull it out to do night street shots. It may take too much time or attract too many people to block the view. Handheld with fast lens, high ISO (usually below 640) and IS can usually give the reasonable night photos.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
If you have a non-IS 70-200 2.8, you are going to want to keep the shutter speed high at the long end, which is why I mention boosting ISO even in daylight. Sure, it's not always necessary, but if you are stopped down a bit at 200mm then I find the marginal noise at 800 ISO to be less of a nuisance than blur from a 1/250th shutter speed.
Example pic:
Until you need it, you won't miss it.
When you need it, you'll wish you had it...
If you have IS, you can decide not to utilize it.
But, if you don't have IS, you can't ever decide to use it...
I agree, but $$$$$$$$ is a big consideration too
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
Hands down IS.
How serious are you about your photography?
I would rather spedn more money on lenses and less on toys.
I compromised on my camera body and spent on the lens.
Lens will always be with me.
IS, IS, IS..
No question at all.
I see that you have the 135mm/2.0 L on your wishlist, now that would be a killer lens for so many applications. Sports, Music, Portraits, Candids, Street, etc. And it takes a 1.4x Extender very well becoming effectively an 189mm/2.8 lens. If you don't mind that its fixed focal, why not buy this instead, its cheaper than both 70-200mm f2.8lenses. The size and low weight combined with f2 allow better hand hold-ability than the 70-200mm/2.8 L non-IS.
Hmm primes are indeed something special
― Edward Weston