70-200 f/2.8 IS or not?

jennifer · May 21, 2007

I had a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and couldn't get him to agree (or at least agree to disagree) that shooting sports with IS is generally an exercise in futility. I'm contemplating purchasing the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and my friend insists I need the IS for anything not involving a tripod. I disagree. In my experience shooting sports (baseball and football primarily and solely as a spectator, not a pro) I've found IS doesn't do much for me other than drain the battery faster. And not to toot my own horn, but I've got pretty steady hands and have been known to pull off a shot as slow as 1/8s.

So the question is, who's right?? The difference in price between the f/2.8 IS and non-IS is about $500 right now and that would be half the price for my next purchase which is a good mid-range (24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L IS -- feel free to discuss!). I understand there are situations where IS is useful, but for me this lens would be used almost exclusively for sports.

I have considered the f/4 IS which is comparable in price to the f/2.8 non-IS, but I think I'd rather have the 2.8 for night games than the IS. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

wyndham · May 21, 2007

jennifer wrote:

I understand there are situations where IS is useful, but for me this lens would be used almost exclusively for sports.

Well you might think that way now but once you start using the 2.8 IS you'll find youself reaching for it in all sorts of situations and the IS coupled with a steady hand or a monopod will allow you to catch available light shots almost anywhere. My favorite lens..... I just wish it was a bit lighter!

I did the Chinese Theatre backstage pictures (Travel>Thailand>Theatrics) at wyndhamhollis.com with mine first time out and was addicted at once. Site still being populated, by the way...

CatOne · May 21, 2007

jennifer wrote:

I had a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and couldn't get him to agree (or at least agree to disagree) that shooting sports with IS is generally an exercise in futility. I'm contemplating purchasing the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and my friend insists I need the IS for anything not involving a tripod. I disagree. In my experience shooting sports (baseball and football primarily and solely as a spectator, not a pro) I've found IS doesn't do much for me other than drain the battery faster. And not to toot my own horn, but I've got pretty steady hands and have been known to pull off a shot as slow as 1/8s.

So the question is, who's right?? The difference in price between the f/2.8 IS and non-IS is about $500 right now and that would be half the price for my next purchase which is a good mid-range (24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L IS -- feel free to discuss!). I understand there are situations where IS is useful, but for me this lens would be used almost exclusively for sports.

I have considered the f/4 IS which is comparable in price to the f/2.8 non-IS, but I think I'd rather have the 2.8 for night games than the IS. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

I don't suspect you're pulling off shots at 1/8 second when you're at the long end of the range. 1/8 second at 50 mm is a lot easier to keep sharp than 1/8 second at 200 mm (which, on a 1.6 crop camera is more like 320 mm). Rule of thumb of 1/focal length means you SHOULD be shooting at 1/500 second to get reliably sharp shots.

For sports, the money for the IS is absolutely worth it. You will get 2-3 stops advantage, and if you ever do anything that's relatively linear (motorsports, track & field, etc.) where you are panning, it has a dedicated panning mode which is good as well.

I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and it is the best lens I own. It is fantastic in sharpness and bokeh, and the IS is most definitely a big aid. I shot with it for 3 weeks in Antarctica, mostly off a boat where a tripod was not an option. It made a *huge* difference. It's absolutely worth the $400-$500 premium for sports. There is simply no question.

The f/4 is also a good lens... but for sports, again, if you're going to be shooting indoors in any case, you'll want the extra stop of the 2.8.

kini62 · May 21, 2007

Depends on what kind of sports you are shooting. Anything that you need to stop motion say with a SS of 1/1000 or even more, then IS has no affect.

If you are into panning then I guess it will help and if you want to take slow SS shots of other things then it will help.

But for sports like, soccer, football (american), volleyball, basketball it won't really help.

As for other shots, if I need to shoot slow SS (I have the non IS) I use my monopod, which was a lot cheaper than the additonal cost of the IS and I can use it with any lens camera I want.

I didn't find the IS worth the extra for what I use my lens for.

Gene

z_28 · May 21, 2007

I have/had all four of EF 70-200L's and by price/value ratio
I think 70-200/2.8L is the best choice

New 2.8L IS cost nearly twice as good condition used 2.8L
I paid this premium already, but don't feel big difference between
IS and no IS.
Probably I got strong hands as you are

Anyway worst one from this pack of four - was 4L IS -
sold immediately without any regrets.

jennifer · May 21, 2007

Thanks for all your replies. I mainly shoot baseball and football, could be daytime or nighttime. Not much opportunity for panning and no chance at a mono/tripod (not allowed in the stadiums, again sadly I'm just a spectator). I appreciate all the input. I'm sure I would never regret purchasing the IS version, although I can't say the same for my bank account!

For those who have used both (z_28?), is there a noticeable weight difference between the 2.8's? I know there is a considerable weight difference between the 2.8 and the 4. Just curious if the IS adds anything.

z_28 · May 21, 2007

Not to much - but every IS and every 2.8 add some weight !

One extra thought - 2.8 L's come with tripod ring, both 4L's NOT :cry
Since tripod ring for 4L IS cost about $150 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
it may be final decision maker.

Thanks you Canon for this white painted piece of metal, ring shaped,
priced as a diamond ring

claudermilk · May 22, 2007

I've used borrowed and rented 2.8 IS lenses many times, and have thought the IS was wonderful. Well, I just got back from a photo trip--the loaner did not materialize this time, so I have to finally cough up the dough for my own 70-200; I chose to go without IS since the last couple of shoots I had turned it off. I'm shooting dance, so a similar situation to evening sports--low light with fast-moving subjects where IS is of no consequence. From the first few shots I've been able to look at, I don't regret losing the IS. In the end I will likely sell this lens and trade up to an IS, but for now the plain 70-200/2.8L is working for me after it's inaugural trip. I noticed no weight difference--after 10 hours hand-holding it was still bloody heavy. My back tells me the tax return will first go to a good tripod or else.

Oh, and I even found some obligatory ducks to shoot for it's break-in.

sirsloop · May 22, 2007

I shoot with the 70-200/2.8L. I do wish sometimes in windy conditions that I had IS, especially when there's a 1.4x teleconverter on there. The shots are not effected at all though... 1/1250th will pretty much stop motion. If you are into baseball, then you may need 1/2000th or faster to really dead stop the ball. At any rate, as others have said these shuter speeds really negate the need for IS. Save the money and get something else... perhaps a 10-22 with the extra money like I did. Now there's a fun lens!!

Also, like others have said, IS eats batteries. Sunday I was out shooting... non-is for 6 hours, 1300+ images, on two batteries in my XTi grip. The battery meter just went down to the middle notch within the last 30 minutes. Thats some insane run time!! My 70-300IS eats batteries significantly faster, probably for one because of IS and two because it has a inefficient foucing system...

jennifer · May 22, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

Save the money and get something else... perhaps a 10-22 with the extra money like I did. Now there's a fun lens!!

I actually just purchased the 10-22. It should be arriving tomorrow. I'm really excited about it!

The $500 I could save on the non-IS would be put towards a midrange to bridge the gap between the 10-22 and the 70-200. I have a month to decide as I don't really need the lens until early July. Right now I'm leaning towards non-IS, but the other posters here have made valid arguments for it as well. It'll be a tough decision for sure.

sirsloop · May 22, 2007

The 70-200L series hold their value extremely well. If you get non-is and later feel that you really want IS you arn't going to lose your butt selling the non-IS used for a new IS lens. Thats where I'm at with it.

z_28 · May 22, 2007

For this gap between 10-22 and 70-200/2.8
I strongly suggest 24-70/2.8L

Then you will be really excited, guaranteed

jennifer · May 22, 2007

Yes I seem to be leaning in that direction. Thanks for the plug, though

jdryan3 · May 23, 2007

z_28 wrote:

For this gap between 10-22 and 70-200/2.8
I strongly suggest 24-70/2.8L

Then you will be really excited, guaranteed

I too love this lens. Replaced the 28-135, which is in the $500 you mention earlier.

claudermilk · May 23, 2007

z_28 wrote:

For this gap between 10-22 and 70-200/2.8
I strongly suggest 24-70/2.8L

Then you will be really excited, guaranteed

Boy, you really love your 24-70, huh? So do I (my own 24-70, that is).

My current lineup now is: Tokina 12-24/4, Canon 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L plus the 50/1.8 Mk I. A very versatile setup & I rarely run into a situation where I really miss having another lens. Of course there's always some lens lust (Sigma 120-300, 35/2, 135/2, a nice macro....), but I can handle 98% of what I want to shoot with what I have now.

Now back on topic. I saw some comments on IS eating batteries. In all the time I've used IS lenses (70-200/2.8 & 300/2.8), I really didn't notice much of any impact on my battery life. I use a 20D with the BG-E2 7 have been able to run IS all day long with no trouble--I don't even recall the meter moving after 12+ hours of near-constant shooting.

Maybe the one Sterlingtek I have in there makes that much difference?

jennifer · May 23, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Now back on topic. I saw some comments on IS eating batteries. In all the time I've used IS lenses (70-200/2.8 & 300/2.8), I really didn't notice much of any impact on my battery life. I use a 20D with the BG-E2 7 have been able to run IS all day long with no trouble--I don't even recall the meter moving after 12+ hours of near-constant shooting. Maybe the one Sterlingtek I have in there makes that much difference?

I can't speak for others, but I should clarify I don't have a grip. I have a digital rebel (300d) and my plan is to upgrade to a 30D in the next 12 months or so, therefore there's no reason to invest in a grip now. I figured I'd get the glass first, then worry about the body. I'm actually surprised my 3-year-old battery has lasted as long as it has and still holds a very impressive charge. The 70-200 f/4 IS was the first lens to ever drain it.

On a totally unrelated note, my 10-22 is out for delivery!

wyndham · May 30, 2007

You'll enjoy the 10-22 I'm sure. I've done some good candid shots where the subjects thought I was pointing the lens right past them and they were in a safe zone. By the way, I used to use a 75 - 300 with the IS running and it didn't seem to have any negative imact on battery life in my 20D. Haven't had the 70-200 2.8 long enough to find out.

claudermilk · May 30, 2007

Well, you're going about things in the right order: get good glass then worry about upgrading the body.

I honestly have not seen any noticeable battery drain from IS. I have run IS lenses for hours at a time (all day long on a few occasions), and the batteries still had plenty of juice left in them. I have yet to run the camera dry. I'm sure IS has an additinal drain, but in my experience it's negligible.

jennifer · May 30, 2007

The last game I went to (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62352) I used IS for the pre-game photos and my battery was already 2/3 drained before the game even started. I turned IS off for the game (and I turned review off figuring that might help) and I was able to shoot the 3+ hour game on the last 1/3 battery.

I own the 75-300 IS USM and I never had any battery issues with that lens. But it's also far less powerful than the 70-200.

Anyway, I just ordered 2 additional batteries so I don't have to worry so much

PS - loving the 10-22. It's so bizarre seeing things through the view finder that aren't even in my own field of vision!

UP N MTNS · May 30, 2007

Jennifer just and FYI, if you are still thinking about the 70-200mm f2.8 IS some one just listed a bunch of glass in the Flea Market.

He has a 70-200mm f.8L IS listed for $1365..
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62705

CatOne · May 30, 2007

This is why I like the 70-200 2.8L IS
Hand it to the wife and she takes a couple snapshots, they come up nice and sharp

jennifer · May 30, 2007

The f/4 IS is looking more and more attractive, under $1000 at amazon even before rebate.

But then I'm afraid I'd have f-envy.

Seefutlung · May 31, 2007

I shoot a lot of sports. IS hasn't any value for sports except for the rare pan ... where it really helps.

IS "ONLY" stops hand/camera shake ... it does not stop subject motion. So if you're shooting action at ... say 1/30 all the stationary objects will be crystal sharp .. but all the people running will be nearly as blurry as if you shot without IS. The only thing that can stop action is a fast shutter speed or a flash (but you don't want to use a camera mounted flash at a sporting event as it may disctract/interfere with the play of the participants.) The shutter speed required to stop sports action is sufficient to eliminate hand/camera shake.

Most people don't understand IS. IS allows you to obtain/attain higher quality images of non/slow moving subjects in low light situations. IS is a substitute for high ISO when you do not need a fast shutter speed to stop action ... and as such it can be very handy ... but it does not apply to every situation.

If the lens is only for sports ... then you don't need IS (although it is helpful for the occassional pan.) Additionally, a tripod is better than IS (but often a tripod is not practical.)

For me, I would love to have IS on all my lenses ... but the extra expense, the limited application (I shoot is more action than stationary) ... just isn't worth the expense.

Gary

PS This is what I like about the 70-200 Non-IS

and

NewTekBuzz · June 17, 2007

jennifer wrote:

On a totally unrelated note, my 10-22 is out for delivery!

congrats on the 10-22. I love mine, wish I used it more.

On the 70-200 if you have the cash, then get the IS. Myself, I spent the extra $600 (at the time) on a 580ex and a grip. I love my non-IS lens, it is sharp and fast. the extent of my sport shooting is youth AYSO soccer and the non-IS works great for that. on another note... you might find the 200 a bit short for most sports unless you have great seats but the great IQ of these lenes will allow you to crop in nice.

Tim

jennifer · June 17, 2007

NewTekBuzz wrote:

congrats on the 10-22. I love mine, wish I used it more.

On the 70-200 if you have the cash, then get the IS. Myself, I spent the extra $600 (at the time) on a 580ex and a grip. I love my non-IS lens, it is sharp and fast. the extent of my sport shooting is youth AYSO soccer and the non-IS works great for that. on another note... you might find the 200 a bit short for most sports unless you have great seats but the great IQ of these lenes will allow you to crop in nice.

Tim

Thanks for your input Tim! I'm leaning towards the IS version. In fact, I'm sure that's what I'll end up with. It's only money, right?

I'll likely compliment it with the 1.4x TC which should make up for the lens being too short. If it weren't for that, I might have gotten the f/4 IS but the TC would turn that into a 5.6 which is too slow.

I just took my 10-22 out for a drive at the Concourse d'Elegance in Beverly Hills. It was fantastic being able to fit an entire car in frame from a foot away.

Helen S · June 18, 2007

You'll love the 70-200 f/2.8L IS if you get it. It was the first "L" lens I purchased and is still the favourite in my kit. I use it for all sorts of photography including sports (rodeo).

20DNoob · June 19, 2007

I went the non-IS route. The one time I thought I wanted the IS version, I put it on a monopod(my mono and tri live in the trunk) that I spent 1/10th the difference on and continued shooting.

jennifer · June 19, 2007

20DNoob wrote:

I went the non-IS route. The one time I thought I wanted the IS version, I put it on a monopod(my mono and tri live in the trunk) that I spent 1/10th the difference on and continued shooting.

Yeah, when you have access to a tri/monopod then I agree the IS isn't worth the extra money. But unfortunately I won't have that luxury sitting in the bleachers at Dodger Stadium :cry

I've just purchased a 77mm UV Hoya, so I guess I'm at least committed to the f/2.8

20DNoob · June 21, 2007

jennifer wrote:

Yeah, when you have access to a tri/monopod then I agree the IS isn't worth the extra money. But unfortunately I won't have that luxury sitting in the bleachers at Dodger Stadium :cry

I've just purchased a 77mm UV Hoya, so I guess I'm at least committed to the f/2.8

Get one of those bean bag jobbers and plant it on the head of the person in front of you. When they go to turn tell them to sit still as if you were their mom when they were kids.

S. Horton · June 21, 2007

In good light --
My feeling is that IS mode 2 provides a few more keepers when the subject is close and moving fast in daylight and the photog is handholding. I suspect it is really compensating for inexperience panning handheld, but I'm willing to be wrong there.

In poor light --
For indoor, handheld sports, IS helps a great deal and can save your bacon at shutter speeds under 1/1000.

In all cases, the monopod helps much more than IS, and it is a whole lot cheaper.

Seefutlung · June 22, 2007

IS won't stop action ... only a fast shutter speed will stop action. The faster and closer the action the higher the shutter speed. In truth ... even high shutter speeds never stop action ... a high shutter speed just limits/resticts the movement to the amount of time the shutter is open. Shooting action at low shutter speeds will produce blur from two sources: 1) the blur of the subject in motion; and 2) blur from camera shake. IS will eliminate the camera shake so one does has an improved image with blur from only one source ... subject movement.

IS "stabilizes" the camera sensor so not to reflect a certain amount of hand/camera shake. The reason that IS isn't necessary for sports/action is that the higher shutter speeds required to "stop" action are also of sufficient speed to eliminate (stop) camera/hand shake as well. Additionally, the IS delay between shutter release and image capture wipes out sequential (i.e. 5FPS) shooting.

IS is handy when you don't have a tripod. I think of IS as a methodology for improving IQ of static scenes under low light conditions (IS minimizes the need to raise one's ISO.)

IS is also very handy for panning. I chose not to add IS to my lenses because the majority of my shots are action oriented and I'd rather use the difference between IS and Non-IS towards more stuff (glass/another camera body.)

I wish all my glass had IS, but at the rates Canon charges for an item I would rarely use ... I think I am happier with the additional gear.

Gary

70-200 f/2.8 IS or not?

Comments