IS on 70-200mm ?

illuminati919

I was wondering how much of a difference the Image Stabilizer makes on Canons 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ? I would be mainly shooting hockey, bmx, motocross. If anyone has a link to a site that compares the lens with and without the IS I would appreciate it.

Thanks alot, Marko.

Andy

illuminati919 wrote:

I was wondering how much of a difference the Image Stabilizer makes on Canons 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ? I would be mainly shooting hockey, bmx, motocross. If anyone has a link to a site that compares the lens with and without the IS I would appreciate it.

Thanks alot, Marko.

For sports shots, you'll find folks divided 50/50 more or less, regarding the IS on the 70-200 - the non-IS is lighter, so you can hold it steadier, theoretically. Personally, I totally dig Canon's IS and prefer it over non-IS zooms.

illuminati919

Got any comparison links of each of the lenses photos Andy ? I know you have links to everything Andy.

Red Bull

I don't think IS will really help when shooting sports unless you are using the panning mode. I think that's mode 2.

DanielB

Red Bull wrote:

I don't think IS will really help when shooting sports unless you are using the panning mode. I think that's mode 2.

still never hurts to have it around for other things though, as long as you've got the cash to shell out on it

DigitalDevo

If it matters, the non-IS version is sharper.

jimf

Red Bull wrote:

I don't think IS will really help when shooting sports unless you are using the panning mode. I think that's mode 2.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, it depends on what kind of sport you're talking about, but I do agree that most of the time you'd be using mode 2. For my use, which is rarely sports-related, IS can make all the difference. I have pulled off shots that I simply could not have taken without IS.

Presuming that price isn't an issue the way you might look at it is that if you have IS you can always turn it off (I do, sometimes) but if you don't have it....

I note that Nikon's VR lenses autodetect panning. Wish Canon's did.

ian408

For some things, I turn IS off. But I think many of the sharpness comments
are related to how you use the IS. If you're on a tripod or monopod it needs
to be off or in mode 2.

Bob Bell

I use the non IS for a few football games this year. I can get really sharp shots by keeping the shutter speed up. I start at 1/500 and when it gets to dark I raise the ISO to keep the speed up. Each games I see shots that I would of had with IS but its usually the end of the game and fast panning.

I had a product shoot at a sport bike race during the summer and saw a photog using the 70-200+1.4x on a 1DmkII for sport bike racing. He was lining up with chicanes and the corners. I never saw him shoot the exits and stretches where the bikes were getting over 100mph.

if you have a body that isnt too noisy at high ISO I would think you could get away without IS for what you listed. I am thinking about trading my non IS for an IS. I am thinking about using it as a hand held lens with big glass on a monopod or tripod and with a 1.4x for birds in flight.

Bodley

illuminati919 wrote:

I was wondering how much of a difference the Image Stabilizer makes on Canons 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ? I would be mainly shooting hockey, bmx, motocross. If anyone has a link to a site that compares the lens with and without the IS I would appreciate it.

Thanks alot, Marko.

I have the IS version of the 70-2oomm/f2.8 and I can tell you it makes a HUGE difference with IS on. Oh whats the difference you ask? With IS on my camera locks up . Not sure if this issue has been resolved in this lens. The condition was wide spread when I purchased my lens back in 2003/2004. There is a thread on Rob Galbraith's site concerning this issue. I have had other IS lenses without any problems.

I'm on my 3rd camera body and have had the same issue with all three. I never bothered to send the lens back or to Canon for repair because it works so well without IS on.

Red Bull

jimf wrote:

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, it depends on what kind of sport you're talking about, but I do agree that most of the time you'd be using mode 2. For my use, which is rarely sports-related, IS can make all the difference. I have pulled off shots that I simply could not have taken without IS.

Presuming that price isn't an issue the way you might look at it is that if you have IS you can always turn it off (I do, sometimes) but if you don't have it....

I note that Nikon's VR lenses autodetect panning. Wish Canon's did.

I knew that it made a big difference with everyday objects. I was just commenting about using it for sports. I wish I had the money for the 2.8 IS :cry

robscomputer

I recently sold my 70-200mm IS but if I needed the lens again I would go for the IS version. It's simply too helpful for low light and indoor pictures.

This shot is from my church, 70-200mm with 1.4x tc, 1/30 sec exposure, hand held.



Mode 2, 200mm, 1.4x tc, 1/90 second exposure. I'm really bad with panning and this was pretty impressive.



Just a test from home, 200mm, 1/8 second, IS off, hand held.



200mm, 1/8 second, mode 1 IS turned on, hand held.



I know people say the non-IS version is sharper but personal I think you gain much more use with IS.

As a possible down side, if you need 100% up time on your lens the IS version might not be the choice. There's a common "error 99" problems with these 70-200mm IS lenses. In my 6 months of ownership my lens locked up 3 times, every time with the 1.4x tc on the camera.

Rob

ScottMcLeod

robscomputer wrote:

I recently sold my 70-200mm IS but if I needed the lens again I would go for the IS version. It's simply too helpful for low light and indoor pictures.

This shot is from my church, 70-200mm with 1.4x tc, 1/30 sec exposure, hand held.



Mode 2, 200mm, 1.4x tc, 1/90 second exposure. I'm really bad with panning and this was pretty impressive.



Just a test from home, 200mm, 1/8 second, IS off, hand held.



200mm, 1/8 second, mode 1 IS turned on, hand held.



I know people say the non-IS version is sharper but personal I think you gain much more use with IS.

As a possible down side, if you need 100% up time on your lens the IS version might not be the choice. There's a common "error 99" problems with these 70-200mm IS lenses. In my 6 months of ownership my lens locked up 3 times, every time with the 1.4x tc on the camera.

Rob

Pictures speak louder than words. Nice shots Rob!

Owen

This is an excellent demonstration. Thanks!

Shay Stephens

I use the 70-200 IS and even though I hate the weight, there is no better lens for the low light work I do. Full zoom, 1/30 of a second, useable photos. It is probably my most used and prized lenses.