| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 70-200 Question
Chris Reichman, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Round Rock | TX | | Posted: 1:19 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> I'm looking into getting a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 but don't know is i should fork up the extra $500 for the Image Stabilizer. Has anyone compared the two, is there a huge difference?
Thanks |
|
David Griffin, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Concord | NC | USA | Posted: 3:06 PM on 04.27.07 |
| ->> IS version is heavier, for what its worth |
|
Guy Rhodes, Photographer
 |
East Chicago | IN | USA | Posted: 3:40 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> I own two lenses with IS (400 2.8 and 100-400 4.5/5.6), and this is what I've found:
In situations where the ambient light is so dark that I need to kick in the IS, I find that the shutter speeds I land at are often too slow to freeze the action clearly anyway.
Example: The IS won't help you get sharper photos of night football if you're starting at 1/125 shutter speed because the stadium lighting is poor. I find that in these situations the blur is coming from subject motion, not lens-shake motion.
I got the IS on the two lenses I have it on because I wanted access to "the best" for every situation, and yes there are times where I do click it on and I'm glad its there.
But, my 70-200 2.8 is non-IS and I rarely wish it was there (and this is one of my "bread and butter" lenses). If you need the cash for other stuff, get the non-IS. |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
 |
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 4:28 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> David,
I don't know if it was my imagination or not but when my 80-200 2.8 crapped out on my, CPS sent me a 70-200 2.8 IS and knew it would be heavier than the magic drainpipe. When I bought a new lens, I got the nonIS version and found its weight to be comparable to my old lens.
Like I said, it could be my imagination!
Also, Chris, I coudln't justify paying the extra money for the IS but that isn't to say it wouldnt come in handy.
Mark |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> Ditto what Guy said.
The times that IS helps me is when I'm in a situation where a tripod would help, but I'm without the tripod. In other words, if the subject is stationary and the light is low, then IS helps.
The rule of thumb for hand-holding a lens and getting a blur-free image was your shutter speed should be 1/2 the lens length. That'd be 1/70 sec for a 70mm, or 1/200 sec for a 200mm. Some people are more steady-handed than others so their mileage might vary, but, in general that's a good rule.
Being conservative, IS gives you about an additional stop of leeway as long as the subject isn't moving, so you'd get 1/35 (roughly) or 1/100. Again, someone who is steady-handed can get an additional 1/2 to full stop - as long as the subject doesn't move. At 1/20 second the subject doesn't have to move much for blur to occur, nor do you have a lot of leeway. An image still drifts in the lens when you have IS on, it's just not as much.
IS in a normally lit room is good, so if you shoot in that situation a lot then it might be worth it for you.
IS in low light with action can make the situation worse if the subject is moving and you're trying to pan. If you're using the wrong setting then IS will try to counter your pan motion, causing the lens to be stationary instead of panning, resulting in additional blur when you could have had some parts of the image be tack-sharp.
My favorite use of IS is for nature and landscape work where I have soft or reduced light, but a tripod won't work.
It's also great for portraits when you're zoomed in tight. Of course then the IS doesn't help at all if you rock forward or backward, because your focus will be off.
I also have the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 f2.8. The non-IS is significantly lighter and balances better with a non-1D type body. My wife loves the non-IS with her 20D with battery pack. I like that lens when I'm using my big hand-held strobe because it really reduces the weight. On the other hand, I like the IS version with my 1D because it feels better, and that's what I use for the majority of my daylight or fixed-strobe shooting.
IMO it's not worth paying the difference for IS just to get the balance "thang". It's worth it only if you're going to be in the sort of light where you can take advantage of its strengths. IS is a nice tool, but it's not the be-all and end-all that Canon or Nikon would want you to believe. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
 |
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> Chris,
It really depends on what you're shooting most. If you're shooting night sports it won't help you stop the action as Guy said, but if you then turn around and shoot some candids it will help get you sharper images at a lower shutter speed. If you need to save some money get the non IS version. If you can afford the $$ it's always nice to have the option of using the IS.
Phil Johnson |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
 |
Burlington | IA | United States | Posted: 9:49 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> I bought my own 70-200 IS version last year even though I have a non-IS version from work. The work lens isn't as sharp, I can say that for a fact. Whether that's because it's older and has been beat up, I don't know, but the IS is noticably shaper. The IS version weighs slightly more, but not enough that I notice the weight differnce in the hip pouch.
As for the IS... as mentioned above, it won't do anything for you for sports, but it does wonders in low lit rooms. I've shot at 200mm at 1/20th and got very sharp images. I've gone down to 1/8 at 200 and had some success even. That alone justified the extra cost in my mind.
The short answer is if you use the lens only for sports, it's probably not worth it. If it's a workhorse lens that you use for daily shooting and in low light situations, it's worth the extra cash IMO. |
|
Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 9:53 PM on 04.27.07 |
->> The times I use it the most are lectures and events where flash might be distracting, not allowed, or would just look nasty (if hard to bounce).
Easy to shoot 200mm at 1/60 at 2.8.
Thats when I use it most frequently. It is more expensive and heavier, but the times you can get a sharp face at a slow shutter speed, you forget the price. |
|
Seh Suan Ngoh, Photographer
 |
Singapore | SG | Singapore | Posted: 1:33 PM on 04.28.07 |
| ->> The 70-200 IS and non-IS are only 100 grams apart. Can you really feel it? |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 2:49 PM on 04.28.07 |
->> "should [I] fork up the extra $500 for the Image Stabilizer"
Yes. |
|
Johnny Vy, Photographer
|
San Gabriel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:09 PM on 04.28.07 |
| ->> I bought the 70-200 IS for reasons everyone listed above - to have those extra stops in low light situations, but I can tell you that I hardly click it on. I guess it was a sense of security to have it, in my case. Most of the stuff I shoot is outdoors anyway, so you should really look into what you are going to be using this lens mostly for. I've found that the 70-200 lenses without IS have been sharper than the IS versions, in my experience as well. Just my two cents. |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 6:45 AM on 04.30.07 |
->> You know,... Some say that the non IS version is sharper..well,...without IS being used for panning or still subjects, you will see the difference.. a simple on/off IS test is all that is needed.. :-)
I owned the non IS version for about 6 years before upgrading to the is version...and before that, I owned the 80-200 f2.8 L..for 4 years..
I tested an IS version owned by a friend, and I'd say after holding it for a good 2 seconds up to my eye, I was convinced! I had to step up into this nifty new technology..and buy that lens.. and I have seen a huge difference in more usable low light shooting with that lens on the fly..
If I need a sharper lens or to stop action better, I'll break out my primes..but for covering events, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L is the lens of choice..
Lets put it this way,... I have taken usable shots hand held at 1/4 of a second... I wouldn't have tempted less than 1/30th before with the non IS lens..
Oh,...and with my 400 f2.8 IS, I can take usable pictures at 1/30th of a second...before, I wouldn't venture bellow 1/250ths on either of my previous 400mm f2.8 lenses..
So yes,...you will want to spend the extra 500 bucks to get the better lens..
If you don't,...you'll be second guessing yourself all the time.. (been there,...done that).. :-)
Enjoy your new lens!
JP |
|
Ronnie Ling, Photographer
|
Adelaide | SA | Australia | Posted: 7:29 AM on 05.03.07 |
| ->> You will want the IS - couldn't live without mine every time I step indoors... |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 05.03.07 |
->> I own both and 99% of the time reach for the non IS. Why ? Well probably the main reason, and yes its a dumb one, is that I still have the hood for the non IS. Hoods don't fit each other so given I like using a lens hood most of the time, and I don't want to spend $40 for a replacement, I use the non IS. Great reason huh lol
Size/weight. The non IS really does feel lighter. On paper not so much but you can really tell a difference on camera.
Optics/AF. Probably to close to call though I do think shooting wide open, the non IS seems a little sharper. Not a huge difference but enough to see. This past NCAA basketball season I would take turns using both and trying to see which looked better and while not scientifc, I would seem to get more keepers with the non IS. Less elements in the optical path help I guess.
IS. I like IS, it can prove very useful, especially on long tele's like the 400 2.8 when you put TC's on. Shooting 800mm without IS to steady the viewfinder it tough. On the 70-200 though..... I don't really use it or miss it when I've got the non IS. I shot a lot of sports, concerts, dance, basically lots of low light action. IS does not help in those situations. Shooting at 1/60th at a concert just isn't helpful because the performer is going to have motion blur. Additionally with IS turned on, trying to track a guy jumping around on stage doenst work because you've got the let the IS "settle down" before a shot. Honestly firing a burst gives just as sharp of shots for me.
I guess it depends on what your shooting needs are. I personally don't need to shoot landscapes, still life etc handheld. IS does work very well for that, but its got its limits still. Even with IS lens, its not like your going to be able to capture any night scenes etc. You'll still need a tripod for stuff like that, all IS does it give you some extra options in low light, which can be worth the money I admit.
I'm just one where if I'm shooting a landscape, I want the best possible image. low iso, tripod, bracketed exposure, etc. Maybe IS could allow me to handhold and get a decent result but thats not how I work in that regard.
100-400, definatly a great lens with IS. Given the range and the lens speed IS is very useful. 70-200 2.8, different range, different usage. Different need for IS.
to each his own though |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
