| 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
Big difference using IS over non IS?
Bill Streicher, Photographer
 |
Riverton | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I've never shot with an IS lens before having used a non IS 80-200 2.8 for a few years and have been thinking of purchasing a new Canon 80-200 IS2. My main shooting will be indoor sports. Stupid question #8, will I notice a big difference while using an IS lens and is it worth the extra cashola? |
|
Juliann Tallino, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 12:13 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> IS is useful when shooting at slow shutter speeds, so not as useful for shooting sports of any kind. |
|
Chris Wilson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Bowling Green | Ky. | US | Posted: 12:50 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> it's pretty handy when panning, also. But in my opinion, it's not worth the extra money, weight, or battery power lost while using it. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 2:05 PM on 01.07.11 |
->> I have found IS to have a difference with lenses such as the 500f4 and 600f4 (I haven't used the 400f2.8 IS, I owned the non-IS). I found little difference for my shooting with the 70-200f2.8 & 300f2.8.
IS in lenses like the 28-300f3.5-5.6 vs the 35-350f3.5-5.6 the IS is significant when the lens is fully extended.
I have played with the 24-105f4 IS and found no benefit to have IS in that lens, as well as a number of the shorter lenses with IS. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> As has been stated, the IS won't provide you with any benefit. However, the new 70-200 2.8 II is supposed to be sharper than the non-IS. I haven't seen a lot of this. But, that reason is why many photographers in Canon will choose the f4 IS over the non-IS - for sharpness. I'm also using the non-IS version. With the premium price of the 70-200 2.8 IS II I can't imagine an upgrade for sports work will have a good ROI though. If it's end-of-life for your existing lens and you'll use it for non sports work that's fine - but I haven't seen enough evidence yet to make it a sound business decision. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | usa | Posted: 2:44 PM on 01.07.11 |
->> I switched from an old 70-200 2.8 to the newest 70-200 IS. As others have stated, for indoor sports the IS wont help you at all.
I have grown to love the IS for dimly lit non-sports indoor assignments. |
|
John Cheng, Photographer
|
New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> Think of IS as a virtual tripod. It will minimize camera shake, but won't help you freeze the action in low light. |
|
Bill Streicher, Photographer
|
Riverton | NJ | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> Thank you everyone for your honest inputs. Listening to everyone's advice and will stick with my original lens for the time being. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 4:37 PM on 01.07.11 |
->> I recently upgraded to the IS II from the non-IS version and
it is a little sharper but not by much. I really did it for
the IS with general shooting and I have to admit that my
perceived ability to handhold was a little optimistic after
seeing the results from my first IS lens. :) It really does
help me a lot.
I'm hoping that when combined with the new 1.4xTC III I'll
see much quicker AF and bit more IQ. I use the 70-200/1.4xTC
combo a lot for outdoor sports.
One area the IS might help in is if you do any casual
portraits during games. Sometimes it's nice to capture a
quiet moment with maybe a nice facial expression. There's
not a huge amount of movement for that and in low light gyms
it may make a difference. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I never use IS when shooting sports. If I was going to buy my 70-200 again, I'd save the money and not get the IS. Five years ago, I used it when shooting the occasional wedding or portrait, but with the new cameras performing better at higher ISO settings, I still don't use the IS. I have the switched all covered in tape to keep them from moving. |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Galveston & Houston | TX | US | Posted: 5:21 PM on 01.07.11 |
->> I recently got the new IS II at work after four years of shooting with the non-IS version and I'm thrilled to have it back. (My personal 70-200 is the original IS, so even when I'm spending my own money I prefer the IS version.)
As everyone has mentioned if you're only shooting action it won't come in handy very often, but it is great for those feature shots into a dark dugout, etc. However if you're doing any kind of news or feature assignments the IS can make a huge difference. Courtrooms, candle light vigils or anywhere else a flash would ruin the atmosphere it will be very helpful.
Again, if you're truly only shooting indoors this won't matter much, but another reason I prefer the IS versions of the 70-200 is because it has additional weather sealing the non-IS version lacks. A little extra reassurance when you're forced to shoot in bad weather situations. |
|
Stan Cochrane, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I'm facing the same decision (70-200), I own a 300 2.8 IS. My understanding was the IS only helped at 1/250 (if you shoot sports when do you shoot below 1/250?) or below. It has never helped me (as far as I can tell) on indoor sports or any others (I leave it off). If the lens is not utilizing it, how could it benefit you? Approximately $1,200-$1,300 to $2,000+,,,,I'm not understanding the additional expense. |
|
Dan Powers, Photographer
|
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 6:55 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I use the IS for all sorts of low light situations that typically are not sports orientated. I really like it a lot for slow shutter speeds while panning sports though. I think it really helps a lot in that situation for sure...Dan. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:55 PM on 01.07.11 |
->> Depending on how steady your hands are, IS gives you about two additional stops of hand-holdability for still images in low light. It's invaluable with small handheld video cameras. YMMV.
--Mark |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 6:56 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I photographed a friends gig last night that was 1/10th @ 6400. I'd have killed for a VR/IS lens. It will help. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 12:26 AM on 02.07.11 |
->> I've been using my 70-200 f2.8 IS II zoom for almost a month
and a half now and although I initially didn't think it would
help with athletic events I've changed my mind. I still need
a fast shutter speed to stop action but the IS really helps
with framing the target and staying on target with the AF
point. I haven't noticed any greater drain on batteries
either (with 1D4 body). I've joined the ranks of people
lusting after Canon to release a new 24-70 with IS. :) |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 1:18 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> For sports IS can be useful, it depends on what you are shooting. There are settings 1 and 2. Setting 2 is for panning. |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 1:57 PM on 02.07.11 |
| ->> I am not a regular sports shooter but I agree that the IS doesn't help much with action - except for using the Canon IS in mode 2 when panning. I have shot a lot of features where I need some movement and I have always had to overshoot dramatically when panning. Since reading the instructions and removing the tape from my IS switch I seem to be getting a far higher keeper rate with mode 2 on my 70-200 f2.8 IS (of course it could just be that practice has paid off... finally! |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|