Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS vs. IS pros/cons

austinado16

Looking for some opinions on shooting non-IS vs. IS for gymnastics.

I've been using a Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS with my 50D and am considering the step up to the IS version. I'm generally shooting at ISO 2500-HI with shutter speeds in the 320-500 range and if I'm lucky, 640th, but that's very rare. 95% of the time, I can only manage 400th.

My concerns:
-The IS lens won't give as crisp an image as non-IS
-The IS lens won't focus or track as fast as the non-IS
-The IS lens won't have an effect at these shutter speeds

My goal is to improve image quality, and my thinking right now is that I'm might be getting some camera shake because I'm choosing not to use a monopod or tripod. I'm also getting some OOF shots due to my skill level, and I know the IS won't help that.

Your thoughts and real world comparisons greatly appreciated.

kiz5

Anything over 1/250th of a second, and you're not getting camera shake with that lens.

Focal length x crop = 1/minimum shutter for no shake.

austinado16

kiz5 wrote:

Anything over 1/250th of a second, and you're not getting camera shake with that lens.

Focal length x crop = 1/minimum shutter for no shake.

Thanks for the input and that little equation.

I heard from a photographer who shot at the Visa Gymnastics event in Dallas last month. He doesn't use an IS lens and said there wasn't anyone using Canon IS 70-200's. They were all using non-IS.

kiz5

austinado16 wrote:

Thanks for the input and that little equation.

I heard from a photographer who shot at the Visa Gymnastics event in Dallas last month. He doesn't use an IS lens and said there wasn't anyone using Canon IS 70-200's. They were all using non-IS.

With athletics, there's no need for IS/VR. The only reason I prefer my 70-200 over the 80-200 (on the Nikon side) is because its sharper in the range I use it for. The VR had no impact on my decision. The IS is a waste of money for a sports photographer.

If you're seeing motion blur, its because the athletes are moving too fast, regardless. 1/320th won't always freeze motion, and adding IS/VR to the equation, you're looking at a photo being even worse than before. Add to that, it also slows down the AF.

rwells

You might say that I've shot a good bit of sports, and the 70-200L f/2.8 IS is my workhorse. The IS doesn't slow the AF down. (Canon) Matter of fact, IS doesn't do anything bad. No, it won't stop action blur, but what about those sideline shots where your subject's not under the lights, etc? Also, when your in an awkward body position and you can't really hold perfectly still, the IS is gonna help...it won't hurt!

I've tested out my IS version against two different non-IS versions. You could not tell any difference in sharpness with mine utilizing the IS. That's not even a concern.

I've now moved away from shooting only sports, and man am I glad that I originally purchased the IS version. (I was also glad I had IS when I only shot sports) Using this excellent lens for portraits, weddings, seniors, etc., the IS is a very nice, if not necessary tool. This lens in IS is relied on heavily in the wedding, fashion & portrait industry.

YMMV

austinado16

kiz5 wrote:

With athletics, there's no need for IS/VR. The only reason I prefer my 70-200 over the 80-200 (on the Nikon side) is because its sharper in the range I use it for. The VR had no impact on my decision. The IS is a waste of money for a sports photographer.

If you're seeing motion blur, its because the athletes are moving too fast, regardless. 1/320th won't always freeze motion, and adding IS/VR to the equation, you're looking at a photo being even worse than before. Add to that, it also slows down the AF.

I too had heard the IS slowed the focus and made the images less sharp...but having no real world experience, I thought I'd ask the folks here, using the gear. I called Canon's tech dept. 2 days in a row and got 2 different answers. 1) Yes, IS will definately help you and won't slow down or affect the focus speed. 2) Not sure if IS will help if you aren't doing panning shots or shooting race cars, etc.

Talk about being confused.

BTW, you can see my most recent attempt at gymnastics shooting in my gymnastics thread below. It's nothing spectacular.

rainbow

On a 50D, I believe you need to take into account the crop factor so that at 200 x 1.6, minimum hand-held shutter speed is 1/320. If technique is not ideal, a higher shutter speed would be needed to get a sharp photo (just look at the stationary objects -- are they as sharp as you think they should be?

I have seen many photographers with the 70-200 f2.8 IS shooting sports. But another consideration is picking up a 135 L prime to supplement your non-IS lens. For the cost of upgrading to the IS, you can keep your non-IS AND purchase the 135L. Now how good is that!

austinado16

rainbow wrote:

On a 50D, I believe you need to take into account the crop factor so that at 200 x 1.6, minimum hand-held shutter speed is 1/320. If technique is not ideal, a higher shutter speed would be needed to get a sharp photo (just look at the stationary objects -- are they as sharp as you think they should be?

I have seen many photographers with the 70-200 f2.8 IS shooting sports. But another consideration is picking up a 135 L prime to supplement your non-IS lens. For the cost of upgrading to the IS, you can keep your non-IS AND purchase the 135L. Now how good is that!

I'm not sure I want multiple lenses for events. I did "ok" last Saturday with just the 70-200 and was able to move around the gym and get as close or as far as I wanted in order to get shots. About the only thing I think I'd like is a 28-70/2.8 for the awards.

Maybe I'm not getting camera shake, but I can feel the camera move when I pull the trigger. But looking in the background of my photos, especially when the subject is OOF and the background is focused, the background doesn't look "camera shake" blurred....at least to my rookie eye.

Randy: Thanks for your input too.

Cuong

I've been shooting gymnastics the last couple years with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Like Randy said, IS doesn't hurt image quality, but can only help. Both the IS and non-IS lenses have exactly the same performance. The minimum shutter speed, using the formula 1/focal length, doesn't always guarantee a sharp image. Some people are steadier than others. For me, my arms get tired, due to the weight of camera and lens as the day progresses, and camera shake becomes a real issue. This is when I'm thankful for IS on my lens. It's definitely worth the additional cost. If you can afford it, then get the one with IS.

Cuong

RicherSea

I shoot mainly sports with a 70-200 IS, and personally think you'd be better off trying to improve your technique at holding the camera, since you shouldn't often be shooting with long enough exposures to make camera shake an issue. Havaing said that if you're ever thinking of buying a convertor to go on the lens then it's a bit different. I use a 1.4 convertor on a crop sensor body (30D) sop, using the formula mentioned above, I should be shooting as 1/500 or faster. Often i'm not and the IS is useful.

Dbl

I'm with Kiz5 on this one. I happen to own both versions of the 70-200/2.8 so I've done numerous comparisons between the two in identical conditions. No doubt that the use of IS will slow down the initial focus acquisition.

I personally don't use IS at all for action shooting. I shoot in the range of 50,000 indoor shots per year with an average shutter speed of 1/320s with the 70-200/2.8. I just have not seen a large difference (the edge goes to the non-IS) in image quality between IS and non-IS, only the above mentioned slower focus acquisition. My understanding on why the non-IS lens is a tad sharper is the the difference is attributable to the additional element required for the IS gyro.

I will point you to a few threads on FM that many experienced shooters have found the same thing to be true.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/687914

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/forum/topic/689963

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/709457

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/692849

In the end you should shoot with whatever technique you are happy with (IS on or off). As you gain experience over time many of the techniques you use now will change as you find better more efficient methods through a constant effort to improve your skill and your equipment. If you are planning on shooting something other than sports you may find the IS to be a nice addition though only you can say whether it is worth the additional cost.

austinado16

Thanks for those links Dan. I read through 'em.

So my new question is; If IS is turned off, will focusing be as fast as a non-IS lens?

kiz5

austinado16 wrote:

Thanks for those links Dan. I read through 'em.

So my new question is; If IS is turned off, will focusing be as fast as a non-IS lens?

Yep.

2whlrcr

That is what I do. I've got the IS version and shoot primarily outdoor action. I felt focus acquisition was slower with the IS on, but have no scientific evidence. I just turn the IS off and it works fine for me then. Whenever I'm shooting a non action subject, I always have the IS turned on and am grateful for it. If money isn't a huge issue, I'd go for the IS version.

Dbl

Simple answer, yes. I have noticed no negligible difference between the two versions with focus acquisition as long as IS is turned off. That is one reason I mentioned in my thread that if you think you might be using the lens for things other than action or fast shutter speeds that the IS version could be a good investment. The difference in image quality is very minor and noticeable mainly when pixel peeping.

I started out with just a non-IS version, when the time came to add a second 70-200 I went with the IS so that I could use it for portraits, team and individual work with natural light. I happen to now shoot almost all of my portrait work with strobes and I find I don't use the IS more than 50% of the time for even that work. I am just stating my uses of these lenses, others my approach their work in a different way.

I've seen the comment many times, "I have the IS and payed for it I'm using it!" As with most everything in life there are no absolutes in anything we happen to do. I personally use the IS when the situation calls for it, I don't feel compelled to switch it on because my lens has it. I have a 300/2.8 with IS that literally has been turned on less than 10 times in 5 years because I normally am shooting such high shutter speeds with that lens. I payed a lot for the feature but if the situation dictates I don't need IS, I don't use IS.

This works for me, my experiences and the results I obtain dictate how I use my equipment. I am fortunate in this case to have both lenses to compare results against. I wish you best of luck with your decision.

austinado16

I really appreciate all the information.

Dan, like you, I'm inclined to use "the tool" as needed. As I'm learning to do with the 50D, I want to understand functions/functionality, and then learn to be adept at putting "it" to use.

austinado16

I'm trying a 70-200/2.8 IS right now and just shot my first meet with it and a 28-70.

First impressions: I like it, I think it takes better pictures (for me) and the slight lag in initial focus while the IS spools up, isn't really a factor. Or at least I didn't find it to be.

robbmaciag

hi guys ... I read the whole topic and didn't find an answer for my small question :-)
Hope you will help me ...

so IS or non-IS that is a question :-)
1. money is an issue .. small but ..
2. most of the pictures will be taken outdoor, on the deserts and in the high mountains (cental Asia and Tibet) - with 5D MkI
3. I use 400mm with my old Nikon D70 in the same conditions and never had a big problem
4. I'm going on the cycling trip for 8-10 months . .it may happen the lens will be "waisted" or simply broken

what's you advice ?

regards
robb

austinado16

A couple of things come to mind.
1) Will you be shooting at shutter speeds that are so slow you need IS in order to reduce/eliminate camera shake?

2) Will the weight (close to 9lbs) and sensitivity of a big lens like this be a good choice for a cycling road trip?

robbmaciag

1. that's not a problem. I will use a low ISO ... 320 max (deserts) except some situations I'll have to go for higher one but ...

2. that's not a problem too .. use to ride for over a year with 2 DSLRs and 5 lenses :-) Kgs are not te problem :-) but if I may carry less (non-IS) without thinking "oh! this pictures as not as good as they could" because I was saving weight .. that's great :-)

thanks for a reply!

Cuong

Since you mentioned most shots will be outdoor, I suggest you consider the 70-200mm f/4 IS. It weighs and costs less than the f/2.8 version. I think IS is a worthy feature to have for hand-held shooting. If you have steady hands or use mono/tripod often then forgo IS to save some money.

Cuong

robbmaciag

great!
That was all I needed to know!

thanks

tjstrider

when I have left the IS on, on accident the AF was messed up, it also really messes with your eyes b/c of the way that the image goes slightly "virtual" in terms of movement.

For people running it could work if you are trying to do a cool panning affect. However for indoor Gymnastics your best bet is keeping you 70-200 2.8 and getting a 100 f/2

or 200 f/2 hah...

or 50 f/1.0