| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2007 02:19:20 PM · #1 |
I'm looking at purchasing the Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens but I'm wondering if it's worth the extra $$$ for Image Stabilization. Opinions appreciated.
Thank you.
Alecia |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 02:37:37 PM · #2 |
IS is great if you like shooting subjects that don't move handheld in low light, or using a heavy lens on a tripod.
Not much use if you want to shoot people, as you'll get really crisp, sharp backgrounds with blurry people, if the light is low enough to require the IS to do something. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 02:40:01 PM · #3 |
I have the Canon Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM - bought it and sold my Sigma 70-300 and I haven't found the IS impressive at all - in fact I can't really tell it's doing anything for me except building up my bicep lifting the camera. :)
I also bought the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM and I like tthe images from it and this one does seem to produce less shaky images at long ranges although I haven't done any valid comparison tests (IS on/off).
How much extra is it for the IS on the 2.8? Probably worth it if less than $100 or so. But whaddo I know. Ask Mr. Owl. :D
edit: ...or ask  Gordon
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 14:40:23. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:18:03 PM · #4 |
I'd always recommend getting it if you can afford it. Even when shooting moving subjects, the IS can help (in certain circumstances). Consider a (albeit, relatively slow) moving subject that you can 'freeze' at around 1/100 of a second. It might well be that, in this particular case, the camera shake would cause more of a problem. IS would help eliminate that.
If panning, mode 2 can be engaged, which can help stabilise in the vertical direction.
For static subjects, I understand that there is not quite as much controversy.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:20:24 PM · #5 |
| I ISed (VRed actually) and very happy that I did. I think everyone should. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:20:41 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
I'd always recommend getting it if you can afford it. Even when shooting moving subjects, the IS can help (in certain circumstances). Consider a (albeit, relatively slow) moving subject that you can 'freeze' at around 1/100 of a second. It might well be that, in this particular case, the camera shake would cause more of a problem. IS would help eliminate that.
If panning, mode 2 can be engaged, which can help stabilise in the vertical direction.
For static subjects, I understand that there is not quite as much controversy. |
All true. I don't think there is that much controversy. Just occasionally I see people perplexed that their IS doesn't help them shoot weddings by candlelight :) |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:27:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
IS is great if you like shooting subjects that don't move handheld in low light, or using a heavy lens on a tripod.
Not much use if you want to shoot people, as you'll get really crisp, sharp backgrounds with blurry people, if the light is low enough to require the IS to do something. |
Why would you get blurry people with sharp backgrounds when using IS in low light situations? Wouldn't you get sharp people on blurry backgrounds? |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:27:29 PM · #8 |
I think you are splitting hairs if you are debating between the two. You are already prepared to drop a good amount of cash, so just go for the IS. Nice thing is you can always turn it off if you don't need it. I have the IS version and love it. I think it helps a lot with camera shake, the lens is pretty heavy so it makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:30:44 PM · #9 |
I have IS, and it's been such a blessing. It does a really good job, and there are a lot of times when you're shooting in less than ideal lighting conditions, and you don't always have a tripod with you. Most of my rainforest pictures wouldn't have really worked without it, since it's kinda dark and rainforesty in there, and bumping up the ISO will only get you so far.
If you can afford it, definitely go for it. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:31:17 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Why would you get blurry people with sharp backgrounds when using IS in low light situations? Wouldn't you get sharp people on blurry backgrounds? |
The IS stops the camera/ lens shake, which keeps things stable during a longer shutter speed.
It doesn't stop people moving/ shaking. They still do, and so blur during the longer shutter speed.
For comparison, consider putting the camera on a tripod in a low light situation and shoot people walking around but with the camera fixed. IS is like that.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 15:32:25. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:31:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Why would you get blurry people with sharp backgrounds when using IS in low light situations? Wouldn't you get sharp people on blurry backgrounds? |
The IS stops the camera/ lens shake, which keeps things stable during a longer shutter speed.
It doesn't stop people moving/ shaking. They still do, and so blur during the longer shutter speed. |
Ah, now it makes sense. Thanks. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:34:54 PM · #12 |
I love it for live music photos. ISO 1600 at f2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/30 and getting sharp photos... try that with no IS.
With my non IS lenses in those settings, I always needed to blast off 4-6 shots to get one sharp image. With IS, I tend to not need to shoot as much. Very satisfying knowing I can focus on interesting angles and comps as opposed to hoping my images are sharp. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 03:40:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I think you are splitting hairs if you are debating between the two. You are already prepared to drop a good amount of cash, so just go for the IS. Nice thing is you can always turn it off if you don't need it. I have the IS version and love it. I think it helps a lot with camera shake, the lens is pretty heavy so it makes a difference. |
Seems a little irresponsible to tell someone to spend large sums of cash they might not be able to afford for something they may never need. What's nice about spending $400 on something you're going to turn off and never use? Seems much more important to weigh out the need for it with their budget.
That kind of cash gets you halfway to another great lens, or a flash, or something else that might be much more useful to them!
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 15:42:48. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 04:08:15 PM · #14 |
There is nothing irresponsible about my advice. I never said turn it off and never use it. It has the option to be turned off, so in cases in which its not necessary, you can turn it off. I have heard people say that in those cases, the IS slows down the USM. I have not had that experience, but I trust the person who told me as they are a professional photog with a studio etc...
Besides that, the extra 3 stops is worth every penny of the difference between the non IS and the IS version. They are already going to shell out a lot of money for a nice lens, they might as well go all the way with it. Its nothing they will regret.
My opinion is that lens could cost $3K and it would still be worth every penny. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 04:18:20 PM · #15 |
If money was no object, the order would of already been placed and the question never asked here. So obviously they have to consider the importance of it in relation to their budget.
For you obviously quite important given the nature of your type of shooting. I have the non-IS and the times I've needed it very rare and haven't regretted not having it.
This not like spending another twenty dollars. $400 is a lot of money to most people!
...and I do agree with you...it is worth having, if the budget is right!
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 16:21:37. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 04:24:01 PM · #16 |
Thats just great for you then. She asked for opinions and I gave mine. I think the fact that you can turn it off sometimes is a benefit. Im sure you have heard the saying, "Its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."
I stated my opinion and you called my advice irresponsible. Great, you don't agree, she didn't ask you to refute all the "go with IS" people did she? Just state your opinion and let her choose for herself, that was the point of the post.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 04:32:55 PM · #17 |
I never disagreed with you about the importance of IS or even buying the lens if you can afford it...and I'm not refutting any or all the "go with IS" people.
I simply questioned "you" about spending big bucks on something you might not need!
...and sorry Justin about the poor choice of words on the first post!
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 16:44:09. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 04:40:45 PM · #18 |
| To clarify, its always good to have it there when you need it. Obviously sometimes don't call for IS, such as bright sunshine with shutter speeds 1000+. But there is a time where everyone can benefit from it, from low light to moving subjects etc... The lens has the option to flip a switch to IS on or IS off. Its a nice feature. If she is spending this kind of money you might as well go all teh way and get the IS version or if the budget is the factor, the f4 IS USM is another good option. |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:20:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I love it for live music photos. ISO 1600 at f2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/30 and getting sharp photos... try that with no IS.
With my non IS lenses in those settings, I always needed to blast off 4-6 shots to get one sharp image. With IS, I tend to not need to shoot as much. Very satisfying knowing I can focus on interesting angles and comps as opposed to hoping my images are sharp. |
You must be shooting quite slow musitians, because I never caught a 1/30sec crisp photo if you don't use flash.
I would never excange my f1.4 for a f2.8 IS.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:42:34 PM · #20 |
Alecia... you can come over and borrow mine if you want to get a feel for it.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 11:05:54 PM · #21 |
Thank you for all the great feedback everyone. I believe I'll take David up on his offer and see how it feels before I bite the big banana. Thanks again.
A
(btw....leaning towards IS at the moment) |
|
|
|
08/30/2007 11:35:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by pearlseyes:
I'm looking at purchasing the Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens but I'm wondering if it's worth the extra $$$ for Image Stabilization. Opinions appreciated.
Thank you.
Alecia |
Be realistic - you don't need any camera related item.
Having accepted that, if you have the dough then get the IS version. It is the icing on an already superb cake... |
|
|
|
08/31/2007 06:06:20 AM · #23 |
I've never used Canon IS, but I do have a Nikon VR lens.
I can detect a noticable difference with the VR on or off. In fact, I think it gains me a couple stops since I can shoot slower and still get crisp results. Frankly, I think any lens over around 100 mm would benefit greatly from VR. |
|
|
|
08/31/2007 09:32:04 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I love it for live music photos. ISO 1600 at f2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/30 and getting sharp photos... try that with no IS.
With my non IS lenses in those settings, I always needed to blast off 4-6 shots to get one sharp image. With IS, I tend to not need to shoot as much. Very satisfying knowing I can focus on interesting angles and comps as opposed to hoping my images are sharp. |
You must be shooting quite slow musitians, because I never caught a 1/30sec crisp photo if you don't use flash.
I would never excange my f1.4 for a f2.8 IS. |
I never use flash while shooting music, it ruins the lights. Outdoor festivals I will because its nice fill light. I use those settings all teh time with fine results. Depending on the movement of the band, its best to shoot in bursts. Those settings are tough without IS, and usually end up in me shooting a lot more than I want and throwing a lot away, but thats the trade off for not using flash. WIth IS I get much more keepers. I shoot with the 50 1.4 as well and I find it sharp but in really bad light the IS still performs better. |
|
|
|
08/31/2007 11:08:26 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by ursula:
he light is low enough to require the IS to do something. |
Why would you get blurry people with sharp backgrounds when using IS in low light situations? Wouldn't you get sharp people on blurry backgrounds? [/quote]
If you go much below 1/30 shutter speed people, even standing still, can blur. Most likely on a 70-200 you won't go below 1/40 handheld, but I found out about this limitation with my 17-55 2.8 IS (my first IS lens) and could handhold 1/5 second...WAY too slow for even the B&G standing at the altar!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 12:02:59 PM EDT.
