How important is IS on Canon 70-200mm

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

07/26/2006 09:22:31 AM · #2

I had the Nikon 70-200 with vibration reduction. Don't have the canon equivalent yet, but it is on my list. I found that if you hand hold a lot, the image stabilization helps a little bit. It is still important to hold the camera steady. If you use slow shutter speeds, you will still get blur if your subject moves, and image stabilization doesn't help with that. I would say, if you can afford it, it's nice to have.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/26/2006 09:27:03 AM · #3

Stabilization enables you to shoot in low light situations where you would otherwise get blur in your shots made with longer exposure times. Whether or not the more expensive IS version is what you need depends a lot on what type of shooting you are planning to do. If you're are shooting motionless subjects from a tripod it's not necessary. If you are shooting moving subjects, like sports action, you will likely want to use exposure times fast enough to freeze the movement, so IS is of little use there. It is the shots in between these two extremes that benefit most from IS.

07/26/2006 09:32:31 AM · #4

I have the IS version of the 70-200, and I would not give up the IS. For the amount of camera shake that's normally experienced, IS is very effective. For example, I can usually get sharp results at 200mm, 1/50s pretty easily.
As noted, it doesn't stop subject motion of course.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

07/26/2006 09:46:08 AM · #5

An additional difference between these two lenses is that the version with IS is weather-sealed, whereas the non-IS isn't.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/26/2006 10:10:11 AM · #6

Yet another difference is that the IS version has curved aperture blades resulting in a near-circular aperture, for improved bokeh.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/26/2006 10:14:41 AM · #7

although ... most of the internet will agree that the non-IS is the sharper lens.

Prof_Fate

07/26/2006 10:21:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by hopper:

although ... most of the internet will agree that the non-IS is the sharper lens.

You make the IS version sound second rate. It's not, and is probably sharper than what most people need.

One reason people buy a 2.8 lens is to use in low light. You can handhold at 1/focal lengh, so at 200mm 1/200 is that speed, but in low light 1/200 may not be feasible, so in theory, the IS gives you 3 stops - 1/60th shutter speed.

If you regularlay shoot bright places or really dark ones (where you'll use a tripod anyway) then it may not be worth the extra cost.

But if you like good equipment and lenses and plan to stay in photography for years (or make money at it) then the extra cost of the IS lens is not really that much.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

07/26/2006 10:31:32 AM · #9

Some argue that with slow shutter speeds you still get movement as your subject moves. But I find that having motion blur on a subject that moved (where a background still looks sharp) is a much better image than an entire image that looks blurred because the camera wobbled.

I have my IS on almost all the time.

Message edited by author 2006-07-26 10:31:55.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

07/26/2006 10:37:08 AM · #10

is the IS version less sharp? if so, how much? *looking for tests online now*

thanks... one of these is probably my next lens

07/26/2006 10:43:33 AM · #11

Originally posted by AJAger:

An additional difference between these two lenses is that the version with IS is weather-sealed, whereas the non-IS isn't.

is this right?

I have the non-IS, for cash saving reasons. I love 2.8 for lots of reasons, but on the 20D it is often easy enough to compensate for low light with high-ish ISO. If it gets dark enough to need more than ISO 800 to obtain a 1/125 or so shutter speed (the slowest I can really hope to handhold), which is pretty dark, then I am likely to switch to a shorter focal length and possibly 50mm f1.8 for real low light work.

So I anticipate that the IS would allow you to work in lower ISOs more of the time, and to shoot later in dusk with more certainty of getting a shot. This would be nice, but represents a non crucial issue for me.

If you get a good price on a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, then you are likely to be able to resell on EBay for a similar price fairly easily, if you find yourself really missing the IS.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

07/26/2006 10:50:22 AM · #12

Originally posted by mo5988:

is the IS version less sharp? if so, how much? *looking for tests online now*

thanks... one of these is probably my next lens

The difference in sharpness between the IS and non-IS versions is very minor; sample variation within the two types might be as large. You can purchase either version with complete confidence.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

07/26/2006 10:52:45 AM · #13

Originally posted by mo5988:

is the IS version less sharp? if so, how much? *looking for tests online now*

By reputation both are extremely sharp. I'm sure you will be happy with either (lucky you!).

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/26/2006 10:52:47 AM · #14

yes, i didn't mean to imply the IS version was poor ... just wanted to say they aren't exactly the same

pawdrix

Nikon D700

07/26/2006 11:08:46 AM · #15

I have the Nikon version of the lens with VR(IS)which are both equal in quality from what I've read, heard and can see. My vote goes with the IS/VR because it's nice to get sharp shots, handheld at 200m 1/30 sec. For a heavy lens, as it is the IS will make a world of difference at the long end.

PhantomEWO

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

07/26/2006 11:14:47 AM · #16

Many think the IS will help them capture action or sports pics better with less blur. That is not correct. The only real difference is the IS will help compensate for the photographer movement. You can hand hold it at a lower shuuter speed when taking a non-moving subject. If you are using it for action or sports photography an IS and a Non-IS at the same ISO, f-stop and shutter speed will still result in the subject being blurred due to it's movement. Last night I was taking to a "real" por taking baseball photos with a Canon f/2.8 400 IS. He ws shooting off a mono-pod. Now this is a $8000 lens. He was still having trouble with the high speed action after dark under the field lights. He was up to ISO of 800 and when he went to ISO of 1600 he said it was very grainy, ok for black and white newsprint work.

So IS will help cancel out some of your own shake but will do marginally for any fast action (all else being equal such as f-stop, ISO, shuuter speed, zoom, and glass quality.)

tkare

Canon EOS-5D

07/26/2006 12:39:15 PM · #17

SO... If I am going to be doing Wedding photography with this, it is a better investment for the IS? Will I be completely disappointed with the non-IS?

07/26/2006 12:49:19 PM · #18

Originally posted by tkare:

SO... If I am going to be doing Wedding photography with this, it is a better investment for the IS? Will I be completely disappointed with the non-IS?

IMO, you certainly would *not* be disappointed with the non-IS lens, but if you do buy the IS version, I believe you will find it extremely useful in shooting the ceremony without flash, and without having to rely on a tripod.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/26/2006 12:54:50 PM · #19

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by AJAger:
An additional difference between these two lenses is that the version with IS is weather-sealed, whereas the non-IS isn't.

is this right?

Yes it is right.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

07/26/2006 01:06:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by tkare:

SO... If I am going to be doing Wedding photography with this, it is a better investment for the IS? Will I be completely disappointed with the non-IS?

I took loads of photos with dark overcast sky and under cover at a wedding last weekend with my 70-200 non-IS. I used ISO 400 for the day to get shutter speeds to 1/1000+, or chained it down to 1/250 for flash work. There is no noticeable grain, and if you need to print at large size, a little noise reduction is not problematic.

Evening work tended towards flash work, so you are restricted to shutter sync speeds anyway.

IS would occasionally be nice, but you can work around it easily enough (the same as you can work around not having, say, a 1ds Mark2).

pawdrix

Nikon D700

07/26/2006 01:15:03 PM · #21

Legal-Matt

I need some Flash Wedding advice badly. I tried some flash shots at a rehearsal last night...with light on in the church, sunlight and the flash on top of that and ALL the images looked like garbage. I'm tempted to use the natural light and shoot ISO 800-1000, 1/40-1/80 sec. or less and live with it.

Flash ain't my thing it seems...never liked the way it looked....

Not to hijack the thread but I'm also tempted to stay back and use my 70-200mm VR for the lower shutterspeeds.

Message edited by author 2006-07-26 13:16:55.

07/26/2006 01:18:03 PM · #22

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by AJAger:
An additional difference between these two lenses is that the version with IS is weather-sealed, whereas the non-IS isn't.

is this right?

Yes it is right.

Thanks - useful to know! Though with Canon's consistent failure to weatherseal bodies, I am not sure why I worry!