Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM...IS or no IS?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/27/2005 04:28:47 PM · #26

Originally posted by Are_62:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
â�¢ the bokeh is ruined with IS turned on

You need to explain to me why bokeh is ruined with IS lenses... Do you know what bokeh is? It only "ruins" bokeh if you decide to shoot with faster shutter and a smaller aperture... IS does not mean you have to change your camera settings to something you don't want....

Do I know what bokeh is? -I try very hard not to talk about things I know nothing about.

I suggest you try out both lenses, the IS and the non-IS with IS tuned on and off, for yourself, as I have done, and compare the respective bokehs. If you are not inclined to do so, you may wish to do a forum search on the subject. There have been several threads on this subject, at least one which included visual samples of what I am talking about.

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:29:24.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/27/2005 04:28:52 PM · #27

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

There's a considerable difference in weight. The IS version is 1310g (my 80-200 is 1330g...It can be handheld but yes, it's heavy) while the non-IS is 705g.

Ummmm, not being picky, but: (From the EF catalogue)

70-200 F/2.8L IS USM is 1470gm
70-200 F/2.8L USM is 1310gm
70-200 F/4L USM is 705gm

Cheers, Me.

Darn, two people got in while I was typing that!!! :-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:29:26.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/27/2005 04:31:17 PM · #28

Okay, just to prove I'm not an idiot I'd like to show you that my ignorance comes from Canon.ca's website!

OOPS!

Sorry for the misinformation!

Edit: Sheesh, it's like being in a polygomous relationship here, with multiple wives to remind me of my errors!

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 16:35:35.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/27/2005 04:37:38 PM · #29

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I suggest you try out both lenses, the IS and the non-IS with IS tuned on and off, for yourself, as I have done, and compare the respective bokehs.

With same aperture setting and same shutter opening there won't be a difference. The IS version does however have an 8-blade circular aperture which even helps in achieving a better bokeh - under similar conditions.

If you have camera shake however (non IS), you my of course get more camera shake resulting in amore blurred background.

BUT... if you compare pictures where you take advantage of IS by selecting a smaller the aperture, you will get reduced bokeh.

I will test it tonight and post both pictures in this thread.

Nitrox

Nikon D300

04/27/2005 04:49:37 PM · #30

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I have the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8.

I was originally considering getting the IS version, but decided not to. These were my reasons:

â�¢ the cost compared to benefit (I would use IS occasionally only, probably only under very low light)
â�¢ the bokeh is ruined with IS turned on
â�¢ the IS adds significant complexity (more can go wrong - I've had error 99 and 1 issues with IS lenses before)
â�¢ additional weight (a very minor concern really)

I have the IS version and when I try to shoot quickly with my 10D I almost always end up with a 99 or 00 error. I can turn the IS off and this problem goes away. I just received my 20D on Monday so I have yet to attach my 70-200 to it yet to see if I have the same problem.

04/27/2005 05:31:27 PM · #31

OKay - here are my test shots.

Keep in mind that I focused on the petal in the very front so the rest of the image is very poor quality.

Both were taken in my living room with a Canon 20D - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS - 1/60 sec, f/2.8, handheld, ISO 100, focal length 110 mm - handheld.

Both images have been cropped to show you 100% resolution.

Shot with a remote 580EX flash controlled by Canon's ST-E2 to light the background only. The flower was lit by a 500 watt halogen work light. No post processing was done to the images execpt brightness.

This first shot is with IS turned on (IS mode 1):

This second one is with IS turned off:

If you still say that bokeh is "ruined" with IS, you have better eyes than I have...

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 17:44:21.

04/27/2005 05:36:50 PM · #32

Originally posted by Nitrox:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
I have the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8.

I was originally considering getting the IS version, but decided not to. These were my reasons:

â�¢ the cost compared to benefit (I would use IS occasionally only, probably only under very low light)
â�¢ the bokeh is ruined with IS turned on
â�¢ the IS adds significant complexity (more can go wrong - I've had error 99 and 1 issues with IS lenses before)
â�¢ additional weight (a very minor concern really)

I have the IS version and when I try to shoot quickly with my 10D I almost always end up with a 99 or 00 error. I can turn the IS off and this problem goes away. I just received my 20D on Monday so I have yet to attach my 70-200 to it yet to see if I have the same problem.

I have observed precisely the same symptoms with the EF 100-400mm L and the Rebel. Canon repaired the IS, which did not solve the problem. They then replaced the lens. The issue returned after a short while. Eventually a the Rebel shutter was replaced, all under warranty. ;-/

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/27/2005 06:11:21 PM · #33

Originally posted by Are_62:

No, given these samples, the bokeh appears fine on both counts. I'm glad, too, you shot hand-held.

The background, however, is quite uniform; the physical distances between sensor-subject-background, also, appear small. The effect I am thinking of would be more critical (and discernible) if you increased the distances, particularly with a busier, variegate background.

What happens is that any defined objects beyond the depth of field, such as an ear of wheat or an illuminated leaf of grass against a darker area appear as if a motion effect has been applied to them, an effect not in harmony with the usual bokeh just beyond it.

The apparent motion effect, as some have speculated, is probably precisely that: compensatory IS action.

You can, I am sure, get some beautiful bokehs with the IS version, but not under the circumstances I have described. When you photograph birds, wildlife or take candids, the conditions I describe are common. Some of these shots benefit from a very shallow depth of field, others just cannot be had any other way.

In order to make most of it, as consistently as possible, I (as have others) opted for a non-IS.

Gauti

Canon EOS-7D

04/27/2005 08:30:27 PM · #34

I'm close to the same boat, but have more or less opted for the F4L non-IS version, due to size but mainly weight. less price helps as well. I don't feel a pressing need for the 2.8, and the F4 fits my needs and wallet quite well, thank you very much.
I've been thinking about the 70-300 DO version, but I'm not made out of money, so that is off limits at the moment.

CorySmith

04/27/2005 08:57:20 PM · #35

go IS
i wish i would of spended the extra 500 for the is version

04/28/2005 01:39:47 AM · #36

Originally posted by zeuszen:

When you photograph birds, wildlife or take candids, the conditions I describe are common. Some of these shots benefit from a very shallow depth of field, others just cannot be had any other way.

Okay - I know what you mean but I haven't seen the effect yet. I also know that the IS lenses are the lenses of choice for many professional wildlife and bird photographers. And they say they wouldn't be without the IS function.

Here's a picture of a duck I took two days ago (shot details are included ). I don't have the non IS comparison for it but I don't think there is anything wrong with this bokeh. I will look for the effect you describe in future pictures.

Same shot but 100% crop

Message edited by author 2005-04-28 01:48:49.

04/28/2005 02:10:03 AM · #37

Originally posted by Are_62:

Well, IS is a wonderful thing. Wether or not you value it depends on intent and application. If I was a true wildlife photographer and not the generalist I really am, I'd probably have IS lenses too.

I occasionally come across this effect. When I do, I will post it here as well. Kirbic (if I remember correctly -and if he happens to read this-) might have some images illustrating the symptoms.