| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2009 09:20:31 PM · #1 |
Hi all
I need some help. I am looking to buy a new lens for my Canon 40d. I have a basic IS lens on there now, I am looking to buy the canon ef 70-200mm f/2.8, but what is the difference between the IS and no IS??? I have always shot with IS so I do not know what the difference would be. Everything that I have read has said it doesn't make a difference, but then I ask....why make it???? So I assume it must make a difference! I am traveling in a few weeks and want some good shots. I do have a tripod which I use on occassion but I am planning on doing street photography, landscapes and buildings and I do not want to use a tripod. I eventually want to use it to shoot action and for my portrait photography. I will not always use a tripod for it but if if is poor lighting then of course I would use a tripod. Can someone tell me the difference between the IS and non??? Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:26:12 PM · #2 |
Whoever said IS "makes no difference" on a 70-200mm lens is insane. It's arguable that it makes no difference in low-light situations (because subject movement still is blurring the image even if camera movement is not), but that's not the same thing.
If you can afford it, you DEFINITELY want IS on that lens if you're going to be doing a lot of hand-holding. On your 40D, 200mm is the equivalent of 320mm full-frame, which by rule-of-thumb means you need a shutter speed of at least 1/320 sec to be sure of sharp images at full zoom, handheld, without IS. Which means you'll be shooting nearly wide open a lot of the time, with all the attendant DOF problems. With the IS you can drop shutter speed to maybe 1/60, certainly 1/125, meaning you get to stop down a couple stops with no penalty, hitting the sharp zone of your lens and increasing DOF to boot.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:29:19 PM · #3 |
Hi there
Thank you for the info! Ya I was wondering why someone would say not to get it!! GEEZE!!!! Maybe you can help me here, which would be the better lens? Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L or the EF 70-200mm F/2.8?? I have been saving for a while so I can afford the IS on both but I want to get the best for my buck I am willing to spend around $2000.00 What are your thoughts on these 2 lenses? |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:34:56 PM · #4 |
It depends entirely on you, your shooting style and needs. IF you are gonna get the 100-400mm, be aware there's an updated, improved version coming shortly and so this is a very bad time to buy that lens. My inclination is to say "Get the 70-200mm and a 2x Teleconverter and bank the extra money," which is what I'd do because I'd only need 400mm of reach very occasionally, but your mileage may vary...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:35:23 PM · #5 |
70-200 would be a bit long for shooting things such as buildings and certain landscapes. eta unless you have some good distance between you and subject. For walking around in a city a wider lens would be ideal.
Message edited by author 2009-02-20 21:38:05. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:37:46 PM · #6 |
| I have the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L with IS. This is a heavy lens and I'm a small girl =(, the IS works great handholding and at low speed, you'll love it, unfortunetly I can not compare this one with the EF 70-200mm F/2.8, hopefully I'll buy it later on. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:44:42 PM · #7 |
| I use both of the lenses that you are considering. The 70-200 2.8 IS is quite an awesome lens. Especially for low light and not too distant subjects. Not all teleconverters will work with the 70-200. I found out the hard way. I have the 100-400 and it is my preferred lens for outdoor long distance shooting. I find that I like both lenses but for different types of shots. Both lenses are relatively heavy but about the same as far as weight is concerned. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:46:35 PM · #8 |
70-200 is the better lens, unless you need 201-400mm in which case it's not...
Message edited by author 2009-02-20 21:46:48. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:59:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by azsweetheart_2122:
...I was wondering why someone would say not to get it!!... |
Well, if you are mounting the lens/camera on a tripod and shooting like that all the time, then IS may not help you. If it is windy and you set it on a tripod, IS may help you.
Like Robert said, if you are always shooting handheld at 1/320 seconds or faster, then you may not need IS. Keep in mind that to get fast shutter speeds, you may have to open up your aperture quite a bit which may not be acceptable in many situations/compositions.
As far as the differences between the two lenses that you mentioned, f/2.8 is very different than f/4.5/5.6. Remember at longer focal lengths with the 100-400mm lens, you will not be able to open up the aperture to f/4.5
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 10:03:17 PM · #10 |
If you are planning to be in town, the shorter lens would be more useful. If you plan on using the lens for birds and animals later, then the longer lens would give you more satisfaction in the long run.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 10:08:54 PM · #11 |
I use both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. Both are great glass. The 70-200 f/2.8, of course, delivers a better bokeh and has a more versatile focal range. I, too, would recommend the IS version for the same reasons  Bear_Music already gave. Both the EF 1.4x and 2x extenders work brilliantly (full autofocus) with it. If you use them on the 100-400, however, you're down to manual focusing. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 10:26:44 PM · #12 |
| I'd go for the fast lens, but then again, I like shooting wide open. (yeah bokeh!) |
|
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: 04/19/2024 05:27:54 AM EDT.
