Talk me into (or out of) the IS version of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L

DYancy · November 15, 2006

In December I plan on investing in either the IS or non-IS version of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L lens. There is of course the roughly $600 price difference between the two versions, which makes it incredibly easy for me to fall into the trap of debating whether I really will use the IS feature enough to warrant the extra expense.

So... talk me into or out of it.

Here is the pertinent info regarding the intended uses, etc:

Camera

Canon EOS 30D with 580EX flash unit
Shooting 75% RAW, 25% JPEG depending on situation, etc.

Typical Uses

Kids' sporting events (mostly outdoor)
Kids' choral and band events (mostly indoor)
General shots during travels
Family gatherings (mostly indoor)

I already own a few other lenses including a Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical wide angle zoom that currently tends to be my "go to" lens for most things. Unfortunately the 75mm zoom isn't enough for me when shooting from the sideline at soccer games, the back of the room at band or choral events, etc. and the field of view is just way too large to promote an "up close and personal" shot in most instances.

That's what has lead me to the 70-200. I want the f/2.8 so that I have more options in poor lighting. That fact alone makes me think that I probably should go ahead and spend the extra money and get the IS version to help reduce visible camera shake.

BUT... I have a co-worker who owns the non-IS version and he keeps telling me to practice better camera control and I'll not need the image stabilization.

:dunno

Thoughts?

Seefutlung · November 15, 2006

Reason NOT to buy the IS:
1) Non-IS is sharper (see photozone.de for MTF charts);
2) You shoot mainly action photos (IS won't stop movement on the lens end only handshake on the camera end);
3) Beacoup extra $$$;
4) Eats up batteries;
4) Extra weight (not a big deal to most).

Reasons TO buy IS:
1) Just because ... (it is handy for those non-tripod times);
2) You shoot mainly landscapes and stuff that doesn't move;

I ran through the same scenario and for moi, I'd rather have that extra sharpness all the time than IS some of the time (I'm not saying that the IS isn't sharp, but the Non-IS is just a bit sharper). As I shoot much more action stuff than non-action stuff ... the IS would rarely be used except for the occassional pan (in which it would be very helpful).

And your friend is right ... slow shutter speed technique and practice is very helpful ... not as good as IS ... but then IS isn't as good as a tripod either.

Gary

PS-
Kids' sporting events (mostly outdoor) - Non-IS
Kids' choral and band events (mostly indoor) - 50% Non-Is / 50% IS
General shots during travels - Not all that useful ... something wider would be better
Family gatherings (mostly indoor) - Not all that useful ... something wider would be better
G

jimf · November 15, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Typical Uses

Kids' sporting events (mostly outdoor)

Kids' choral and band events (mostly indoor)

General shots during travels

Family gatherings (mostly indoor)

I already own a few other lenses including a Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical wide angle zoom that currently tends to be my "go to" lens for most things. Unfortunately the 75mm zoom isn't enough for me when shooting from the sideline at soccer games, the back of the room at band or choral events, etc. and the field of view is just way too large to promote an "up close and personal" shot in most instances.

The IS feature isn't so useful for shooting something like kids' sporting events. Usually there is enough light that you don't need it, and you want to use it in panning mode which is only available in landscape orientation. (Nikon's version of this lens autodetects panning in both dimensions; much nicer.) While I normally leave the IS engaged all the time, I disable it for my kid's soccer games. There are just too many cases where I want to shoot portrait mode and have to pan. I would rather bump up the ISO and shoot with a high shutter speed.

The IS feature is useful for auditorium/church shooting using available light; there have been cases where I pulled usable shots in conditions where by rights I shouldn't have been able to get anything at all. These are the conditions I bought the lens for, and I have not been disappointed.

Indoor "family" shots probably won't supply much fodder for this lens. At least in my experience most of the places I do that kind of shooting are too small for a lens this long.

Whether it's worth the extra money over the unstabilized lens is always going to be a value proposition. If I mostly shot outdoors I wouldn't buy it, but shooting indoors its invaluable.

cmason · November 15, 2006

I have the 70-200 non-IS. I have not used the IS version, but have used other IS lenses.

The non-IS is perfect for kids sports and the uses you mention. I use it for all sorts of kids sports, mostly outdoors in daylight. It is not strong in low light. As others have said, IS will help in low light situations, but sports are not low light activities, given the motion.

I love the size and weight of this lens. it is internally focusing, so it is perfect for travel (no creep) and very very sturdy. I understand the IS isn' t much bigger, so this perhaps isn't a factor.

One approach is to get the non -IS and see if it meets your needs. You can buy it new and sell it later very very easily. You can also buy a used one easily as well. Since the non-IS is so affordable, this should be an easy justification exercise.

DYancy · November 15, 2006

Thanks, all. As for using a 70-200 for family gatherings, I was thinking more along the lines of portraits or candids shot at such events. I still have my Tamron wide-angle zoom for those group shots.

I have the IS version reserved for rental on the weekend of December 2nd so that I can kick the tires a bit and shoot some pictures of my daughter in a Christmas parade. Maybe that will help me make up my mind.

Probably not, but maybe.

Seefutlung · November 15, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Thanks, all. As for using a 70-200 for family gatherings, I was thinking more along the lines of portraits or candids shot at such events. I still have my Tamron wide-angle zoom for those group shots.

I have the IS version reserved for rental on the weekend of December 2nd so that I can kick the tires a bit and shoot some pictures of my daughter in a Christmas parade. Maybe that will help me make up my mind.

Probably not, but maybe.

When IS is engaged there is a delay between shutter release and allowing you to re-acquire a subject shoot again. So test it a bit before the parade. At the parade take some with the IS and some without IS (crank up the ISO) and see which feels better and then compare results.

Gary

Seefutlung · November 15, 2006

Hey- If you live in SoCal I'd be happy to let you try out the Non-IS.

Gary

jimf · November 15, 2006

DYancy wrote:

As for using a 70-200 for family gatherings, I was thinking more along the lines of portraits or candids shot at such events.

If it's a big room (like a function room) it's great for candids. But in a household setting it isn't that useful, it's just too long. Also be aware that most flashes don't have the output to shoot beyond the short end of that lens; it's pretty much an "available light" lens.

evoryware · November 15, 2006

I thought the IS version had two or three modes of IS and one of them was for panning shots? I have the Non-IS I love it. It was a huge price jump for a feature that I may rarely need with that lens.

jimf · November 15, 2006

evoryware wrote:

I thought the IS version had two or three modes of IS and one of them was for panning shots? I have the Non-IS I love it. It was a huge price jump for a feature that I may rarely need with that lens.

It does have a panning mode (that's "mode 2" on the lens), but it only allows vertical correction in landscape orientation. If you want to pan in portrait orientation ... oh well.

DYancy · November 16, 2006

Seefutlung wrote:

When IS is engaged there is a delay between shutter release and allowing you to re-acquire a subject shoot again. So test it a bit before the parade. At the parade take some with the IS and some without IS (crank up the ISO) and see which feels better and then compare results.

I'd read about that delay and agree it's something you would definitely need to anticipate before snapping a shot. I also wonder if the IS set in mode #2 wouldn't be a nice thing to have when I'm at an auto race. Panning with IS on might make for some really nice action shots.

And the ability to turn IS off when not needed to conserve battery and allow for faster follow-up shots strikes me as adding versatility to it. But... there's that $600 premium for something that I likely would not use very often. $600 that could be applied to many other things instead.

Seefutlung wrote:

Hey- If you live in SoCal I'd be happy to let you try out the Non-IS.

Gary

Unfortunately I'm across the country from you, but I do appreciate the offer.

One of the things you also mentioned is the fact that the non-IS lens provides sharper photos. I think that like you, I'd find more value in THAT than in being able to shoot in IS mode maybe 5% of the time. And again, good camera control and bumping up the ISO so that I could shoot a faster shutter speed might be all the compensation I would need in the vast majority of situations.

Sounds like I'm talking myself out of the IS lens! :gone

claudermilk · November 16, 2006

Seefutlung wrote:

Hey- If you live in SoCal I'd be happy to let you try out the Non-IS.

Gary

I might just remember that. I'm pretty well convinced on the IS myself & have used that version several times. There is that little nagging question in the back of my mind if the non-IS would work as well--I usually quash it, but it keeps coming back.

jimf · November 16, 2006

DYancy wrote:

I'd read about that delay and agree it's something you would definitely need to anticipate before snapping a shot.

The delay is actually quite minor. It's there, but it's not a big deal.

I also wonder if the IS set in mode #2 wouldn't be a nice thing to have when I'm at an auto race. Panning with IS on might make for some really nice action shots.

It does. It's perfect for that kind of thing.

One of the things you also mentioned is the fact that the non-IS lens provides sharper photos. I think that like you, I'd find more value in THAT than in being able to shoot in IS mode maybe 5% of the time.

The difference between the two is very minor; the IS version is still a very sharp lens. Thus I wouldn't put much weight on that attribute.

And again, good camera control and bumping up the ISO so that I could shoot a faster shutter speed might be all the compensation I would need in the vast majority of situations.

True, but it's one of those things that not only makes it easier to take a good shot, it can make the difference between getting the shot at all. There's a big difference between 1/80 and 1/250, and that is the kind of difference stabilization makes.

If you can afford it it's a really nice feature.

DYancy · November 16, 2006

Agh... what a dilema!

I'm looking forward to renting the lens in 2 weeks. I'm sure that will help me make up my mind more. Maybe.

ziggy53 · November 16, 2006

Remember that you can turn off the IS completely, if you feel it's not necessary.

I chose the non-IS version because it just wasn't that important for the type of shooting that I do.

For sports, I use a full tripod. I level the system when I can and then the tripod keeps the level fairly well. I use the tripod ring to rotate the system when I can't level the sticks. This saves lots of time in post, versus a monopod which isn't that helpful staying level. You do have to be careful and thoughtful of others when the legs are out.

For indoor "receptions" and such, I use flash, and even at 200mm, if I use ISO 800-1600 it contributes pretty well.

These were shot last year with an older Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8, with similar attributes to the Canon along with a Sigma 500 Super flash:

attachment.php?attachmentid=9360&stc=1&d=1133534363

attachment.php?attachmentid=9360&stc=1&d=1133534363

attachment.php?attachmentid=9361&stc=1&d=1133534478

ziggy53

DYancy · November 16, 2006

Ziggy, do you recall how far away you were from the subject for those shots that you posted?

Oh and I see that you had the Sigma counterpart but bought the Canon 70-200 non IS. Do you care to offer a comparison between the two lenses? Obviously the L should have a far superior build quality, but any other thoughts on the two?

Seefutlung · November 16, 2006

Okay .. I hate doing this cuz it will start a useless uploading of images that without a control are meaningless ... but what the heck .. right

Non-IS Canon 70-200 2.8
at:
200mm
1/320
F/4.5
ISO 800

65468676-L.jpg

ziggy53 · November 16, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Ziggy, do you recall how far away you were from the subject for those shots that you posted?

Oh and I see that you had the Sigma counterpart but bought the Canon 70-200 non IS. Do you care to offer a comparison between the two lenses? Obviously the L should have a far superior build quality, but any other thoughts on the two?

To be fair, many folks have a very good experience with the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8, but not me (or not "I", I can't remember.)

ziggy53

ziggy53 · November 16, 2006

HS Football samples at:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/School/232835

All of the Oct games were shot with the Canon 1D MKII and Canon 70-200mm (non-IS), f2.8L. Note the one night game shot wide open, f2.8 and ISO 3200. Day games at F4 and ISO 200.

September games shot with the same lens but Canon dRebel XT/350. Night games wide open at ISO 1600.

All games shot with tripod.

ziggy53

Jeffro · November 16, 2006

ziggy53 wrote:

All games shot with tripod.

Really? I don't think I've ever seen that done. I don't even like to use a monopod with my 70-200 IS, when shooting sports. It's not heavy enough to wear me out, so I don't feel I need the extra support.

I like my IS version btw. It comes in handy in low light non-action situations, and when panning in sports. There are times when a school musical or play wont allow one to use a tripod or monopod, so the IS helps.

dancinkate · November 17, 2006

I have the IS and really love it. I don't shoot sports but many of my weddings have not allowed flash (often in stone churches with little light). The IS has made a HUGE difference in the quality that I see from my images and the images my husband gets without the IS lens.

Seefutlung · November 18, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

I might just remember that. I'm pretty well convinced on the IS myself & have used that version several times. There is that little nagging question in the back of my mind if the non-IS would work as well--I usually quash it, but it keeps coming back.

claudermilk-

I shoot with a group, LA Shooters, if you join us on a shoot there will be a ton of stuff to try out. Just PM me.

Gary

moose135 · November 18, 2006

I was torn between IS and non-IS myself. Finally decided to get the non-IS version, for a few reasons. Cost was certainly a factor. Also, I intended to use it for indoor and night-time sporting events - hockey, baseball, etc. and I expected to use a higher shutter speed so I didn't think IS would be as important (I also have the 100-400 IS, but wanted the f2.8). Sometimes I think the IS would have been nice (and it would) but I'm happy with this version.

Here is an example from a NY Islander game earlier this season, shot from my company's suite on the press box level, shot at ISO 200, f4.0, 1/400 sec.

DYancy · November 29, 2006

Just curious as to whether any of you read the rather glowing review of the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG Macro lens in this month's issue of Shutterbug. The author seemed to be very impressed with this latest incarnation of Sigma's 70-200 lens.

Ziggy, you had the previous version (non Macro) correct?

ziggy53 · November 29, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Just curious as to whether any of you read the rather glowing review of the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG Macro lens in this month's issue of Shutterbug. The author seemed to be very impressed with this latest incarnation of Sigma's 70-200 lens.

Ziggy, you had the previous version (non Macro) correct?

Correct you are!

ziggy53

Talk me into (or out of) the IS version of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L

Comments