canon 70-200 USM f/2.8 OR canon 70-200 USM ISf/2.8

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 05:00:30 PM · #1

Which one? There is a big price difference? I've never used a lens with IS before, is it worth it?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/02/2005 05:04:52 PM · #2

I covet, but do not own either, but quite a few people buy the non-is and end up trading up to the IS version. It seems like most folks either pop for the IS or buy the f/4 version for about the price of the difference between the IS and nonIS version of the 2.8

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 05:06:18 PM · #3

Unless you plan on using a tripod everytime your using the lens, your going to want IS, or you cant hand hold the camera

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

11/02/2005 05:14:20 PM · #4

but if you shoot mainly sports, is won't help you. or if you shoot in the studio, is won't do much (unless you use continuous lights)

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 17:14:30.

toiletboy99999

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 05:30:04 PM · #5

I plan on doing alot of sports photos. I am currently using the 75-300 USM III f/4-5.6. It works great on very sunny days, but it sucks at dusk, and at games under the lights

Happy Bunny

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

11/02/2005 05:46:31 PM · #6

I have been shooting with the 70-200 2.8L non IS for nearly 10 years. I can hand old it at 20/s at 100mm with a EOS 5 or 20D and get ultra sharp results every time. Its just as sharp with the 1.4 extender. Focusing is instant. I cannot imagine a better lens for sport or candid. I see no reason to "upgrade". Worth every penny.

theSaj

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/02/2005 05:47:18 PM · #7

Why would the IS not work for sports?

It's even got a mode that allows for the IS to work on only one Axis, so that you get horizontal movement but not vertical.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/02/2005 06:00:02 PM · #8

I've borrowed the IS/USM 70-200L for live action at low light, and found the IS a great asset because I could get some crisp, hand held images. Without it I'm sure I would have had more motion blur

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/02/2005 06:38:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by theSaj:

Why would the IS not work for sports?

It's even got a mode that allows for the IS to work on only one Axis, so that you get horizontal movement but not vertical.

Stabilization will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without incurring the blur that results from camera shake. Conventional wisdom for sports action type shooting calls for shutter speeds fast enough to freeze the subject's motion. At these shutter speeds the camera shake that would be defeated by IS, or VR on the Nikon lenses, is not a significant factor. For any given amount of light you'll be able to shoot a few stops slower with stabilization than without it; but when you're talking about shooting sports where the players are moving fast, you don't want to go to such a slow shutter speed because your subject will be blurry instead of "frozen".

gaurawa

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/02/2005 07:18:35 PM · #10

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Why would the IS not work for sports?

It's even got a mode that allows for the IS to work on only one Axis, so that you get horizontal movement but not vertical.

Stabilization will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without incurring the blur that results from camera shake. Conventional wisdom for sports action type shooting calls for shutter speeds fast enough to freeze the subject's motion. At these shutter speeds the camera shake that would be defeated by IS, or VR on the Nikon lenses, is not a significant factor. For any given amount of light you'll be able to shoot a few stops slower with stabilization than without it; but when you're talking about shooting sports where the players are moving fast, you don't want to go to such a slow shutter speed because your subject will be blurry instead of "frozen".

1/100s or 1/125s can also freeze action and you sure need IS for shooting with 200mm at 1/100s

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2005 08:39:24 PM · #11

Originally posted by gaurawa:

1/100s or 1/125s can also freeze action and you sure need IS for shooting with 200mm at 1/100s

Those are pretty slow shutter speeds to freeze, or stop, the movement in sports. Maybe a player standing on the sidelines, but that's more like a protrait than an action shot. I shoot sports at 1/250 sec minimum, faster whenever the lighting conditions allow. If I were to shoot at 1/125 or 1/100 I would expect to see blur in my images and it wouldn't matter much if it were from camera shake or motion, a blurry image is a blurry image regardless of the cause.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/02/2005 08:51:38 PM · #12

Originally posted by coolhar:

If I were to shoot at 1/125 or 1/100 I would expect to see blur in my images and it wouldn't matter much if it were from camera shake or motion, a blurry image is a blurry image regardless of the cause.

If I'm forced to shoot at slow speeds, I'd much rather see "motion blur" from the action on the field, than blur from camera shake. One blurs only the action and, in some cases can actually look kinda cool. The other just makes everything look bad. I'd go for the IS. :-)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/02/2005 09:12:18 PM · #13

Originally posted by dwterry:

I agree that if I am forced to have some blur, then motion blur is preferable to cameras shake blur. And I agree that motion blur is a positive in some shots. But if you are going for real "stop the action" images with some sharpness to them, you're just not going to get that crisp look at 1/100 or 1/125, unless maybe if your subject is standing still. Even my 1/250 is marginal, sometimes yielding movement in players hands and feet.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/02/2005 10:06:58 PM · #14

The IS is a great advantage when in AV mode, with a high ISO. It also is pretty nice to have when tracking athletes on a horizontal plane like soccer for instance.

Jason

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/02/2005 10:12:07 PM · #15

If ALL you are going to do is sports, then you probably wont use IS very much. But who knows what you will be shooting down the road... the exact moment that you need IS will be the time that you start kicking yourself for not buying it.

The 70-200mm is a fantastic all around lens, IMHO, there is no reason not to buy IS. The lens will be with you for years and years to come. It's the perfect lens to have IS on.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/03/2005 05:14:36 AM · #16

The last four posters (gaurawa, dwterry, swingin_johnson_v1 and Jason) to this thread other than myself all seem to be advocating that the person who started the thread invest in the IS version. Checking their respective profiles I see that 3 of them own that lens, the more expensive of the two options the OP has inquired about. The 4th owns two other expensive Canon IS lenses. With all due respect to these four fine photographers, I submit that their objectivity, with regards to the issue of IS, may be somewhat compromised.

There is a sort of a habit here at dpc that we ought to try to break. In response to forum inquiries about which cameras and lenses to buy, we here at dpc have a fairly strong tendancy to reccommend what we own, and/or the most expensive option available, whether or not that is appropriate for the needs of the person asking for advice.

toiletboy, your profile indicates you are past the newbie stage being as you are on your second Canon dslr, and have a couple of fairly sophisticated lenses in your bag (50mm f1.4 & 60mm f2.8 Macro). If you want to buy a lens and not worry about whether you made the right decision, then go ahead and spend the extra $560.00 to get the IS version. It may be more than you need but you won't have buyers remorse for not getting the best, most expensive model. If you think you can be happy without IS for now, get Canon's non-IS version. But also take a moment to consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 like I bought recently. I think it's as good as the Canon non-IS model; you'll get the experience of venturing beyond Canon's offerings and into third party territory; and save $260.00 toward your next lens purchase.

Good Luck with your sports shooting whatever lens you decide on.

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 05:21:39.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/03/2005 06:03:25 AM · #17

Originally posted by coolhar:

With all due respect to these four fine photographers, I submit that their objectivity, with regards to the issue of IS, may be somewhat compromised.

I resemble that remark! :-)

For what it's worth, I agree with you 100%. I have and recommend IS to everyone. But your advice is both valid and wise.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/03/2005 06:06:45 AM · #18

Hurro...

I shoot a lot of sports with the non-IS version (as per //cpix.co.nz) , and have used the IS version borrowed a few times. The only time I've wished I had the IS version was at a wedding earlier in the year, shooting indoors in poor light.

There's a lot of factors in this equation:

If you're a 'gear head' and have the money, by all means splash out on the IS version... If you're going to be shooting weddings get the IS version.

If you're a hobbyist only, and tight on budget the Sigma one coolhar mentioned is a good option.

If you're shooting sports for a paper it's unlikely they will appreciate your 'artistic' motion blur regardless of how much IS improves it by keeping the background still. Any kind of blur looks shoddy when printed on newsprint.

Both versions are amazing glass, mine quite often amazes me with the images that I get when things go right... But like all things photographic, you can take some really useless snapshots with them as well. :-).

Cheers, Chris H.

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 06:07:49.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/03/2005 06:08:47 AM · #19

I started photographing soccer last year and at that time I used the 70-200mm f4 and Sigma 135-400mm with some great results.
The big enemy for me was low light conditions as I had to raise the ISO in one instance, up to 3200.Luckily, the 20D handles this well, but I did feel the need to purchase a new lens and recently aquired the 70-200mmF2.8 with IS which makes a great difference when the sun refuses to make an appearance (pretty common in my neck of the woods).

I agree wholeheartedly with Harvey (Coolhar)that the IS is not of any great advantage for the capture of fast action but since I intend to use the lens for more than just sports shots, I went for it anyway.
For the soccer action, if I find my shutter speed dropping below 1/400, I make adjustments.
If players are running towards you, then you may get away with a slightly slower speed but most cross field action would contain significant motion blur at 1/200.

I have met a few professional media photographers with Canon gear at the games and the concensus from them is that the non IS 70-200 with a 1.4 converter is the way to go.Unless you can afford the mega bucks to buy the 400mm f2.8 of course :)

Taken at Saturday`s game

Message edited by author 2005-11-03 06:12:45.