70-200 f2.8 IS or non IS

KRO

KRO

Messages
623
Name
keith
Edit My Images
No
i'm sure this has been done before but for the life of me i cant find anything on the search system, (infact i never can)
so for those of you who own or have owned both, could you please give me your opinions and reasons, as for me this would be a big purchase that i would want to get right..and i have neither the knowledge or experience to know which to go for...i will be wanting to do some motorsport/motorcross/trials, some football and possibly a little equestrian...
obviously my initial post refers to the canon lenses....
if i consider the sigma version, am i right in thinking they do not do a stabilised version............so many questions, this could melt your brain..:thinking: :help:
 
If Canon's IS is anything like Nikon's VR then it's an excellent thing to have on certain lenses. The VR on my 70-200 f/2.8 makes this zoom trump my 200 f/2 (non-VR) for low-light photography.

For sports however, it'll be no replacement for a high shutter speed.
 
ok so for motorsport or anything mobile/moving...is IS less important....:thinking:
 
sooyeshun said:
i probably will get the IS version, although will set you back with a few hundred quid
Click to expand...

yes but why will you get the IS version, is it just because you can or will you particularly need/want it....if so why..:shrug:
 
Bear in mind it's quite a chunky lens either way, so that helps to hold it steady.

If you can afford the IS then get it - if it's a stretch then the non-IS is simply an awesome lens in every respect - except the lack of IS!

HTH
 
pearce_jj said:
Bear in mind it's quite a chunky lens either way, so that helps to hold it steady.

If you can afford the IS then get it - if it's a stretch then the non-IS is simply an awesome lens in every respect - except the lack of IS!

HTH
Click to expand...

pearce_jj
thanks for the reply, if i go for the slightly cheaper option of the non IS....what..when..how will i miss it..lol...:bang::bang:
 
if your going to shoot hand held at 200mm and want it sharp non-exceptional lighting conditions IS will guarantee you more sharp shots - and less dissapointment when you get home see them on screen and notice a bit of handshake blur

I love it for flash free indoor portaits, when has 2-4 extra stops light flexibilty not been useful
 
just look at the forums - you rarely see IS'ers wanting to trade down, but the non- ISers often want to trade up
 
IS will help most if your shutter speed is less than 1/280th at 200mm (taking account of 40D crop factor). Also heavier cropping is possible from IS images for the same reason - the IS eliminates camera shake, some rediculous shutter speeds can be obtained with good technique, so zoom right in and it will always be pixel perfect pretty much.

General opinion seems to be that you'll need 1/60th or better if shooting people, so it certainly can help.

Obviously sports is a completely different set of criteria.

HTH
 
malla1962 has one going for £925 - that's a bargain

I bought a lens of him and he looks after them beautifully - I'd get in quick before he ebay's it - they go for over £1k there
 
KRO said:
ok so for motorsport or anything mobile/moving...is IS less important....:thinking:
Click to expand...

With the Canon IS you get two modes one is for every movement and one for panning so this will let you pan and only stabilised the plane that is 90deg to your panning
 
This is a crop from my IS version with a 1.4TC is mode 2.
MO2Q9112-1.jpg
 
My opinion, for what it's worth. I was also of the view that IS is not necessary when shooting motorsport as you need high-ish shutter speeds so risk of camera shake much reduced or eliminated. But ....

I first rented, and then purchased, the Sigma 150-500 with IS (not your proposed lens I know but stay with me) and now have to say I would not buy another non-IS lens. Why? For motorsport in bright sun, ideal position etc. etc. then I would say there's nothing in it. However, get away from the ideal, either in lowish light, or maybe you want slow shutter speed (eg for panning effect), or you shoot a non-motorsport subject, then the IS comes into it's own. I was surprised how many time I've found myself relying on it.

Of course, a good tripod will also give you the same results under certain conditions!

Also, I haven't seen it mentioned, but remember IS will consume battery power so make sure you have enough.

Hope this helps and doesn't add to the confusion!!

Andy
 
KRO said:
yes but why will you get the IS version, is it just because you can or will you particularly need/want it....if so why..:shrug:
Click to expand...

yes, i'm having a crop sensor (1.6x). Therefore in 200mm = 320mm (35mm equilv), hand shake is amplified and will result blurer on my picture. The IS function helps a few stops. that's a lot.
 
IS all the way, you'll only buy one once ;) thankfully bought mine new a few years ago about £400 less than current new prices
 
there is a sigma 70-200 and if you want something approaching the range of a 70-200 on a cropped body, the sigma 50-150 is about there

I really don't understand why people put top end pro glass on a entry level body though.
The xxD series is the minimum spec camera I would considering putting £1200+ worth of canon L-glass on in my skint opinion. (yes I know the OP has a 40D)

the IS on the 70-300 I have is great though, won't buy a long lens without it in the future.
200 is about the threshold though, however, on a cropped body that's nearer 300 so IS is a great idea if you can afford the cost and weight
 
sheridant said:
malla1962 has one going for £925 - that's a bargain

I bought a lens of him and he looks after them beautifully - I'd get in quick before he ebay's it - they go for over £1k there
Click to expand...

here's another thing that baffles me,and dont get me wrong, i'm not pointing the finger at any one or any one item whatsoever...
but these lenses get offered along with quite often a lot of issues (that do accumulate) like lack of boxes,manuals,cases and issues such as scratches,dust,chips etc. then of course some of them are several years old !!
and still the prices are quite often not a great deal less than new...:thinking:
i know that a lot of equipment is not like this, and despite the age are often totally complete and in first class condition...if you are lucky...but WOW dont they demand strong money!!!!
 
DizMatt said:
there is a sigma 70-200 and if you want something approaching the range of a 70-200 on a cropped body, the sigma 50-150 is about there

I really don't understand why people put top end pro glass on a entry level body though.
The xxD series is the minimum spec camera I would considering putting £1200+ worth of canon L-glass on in my skint opinion. (yes I know the OP has a 40D)
Click to expand...


Huh? That's a fairly elitist point of view. As an example, say you get into photography with a 400d, kit lens and nifty fifty.

Now you're really into photography it's time to spend some money to get into birding / motorsports / whatever.

Would you rather spend that initial £1000 on a 70-200 or a 7d body and use it with your nifty fifty.

It's quite easy to outgrow bad glass, but even a 400d / 40d will take stunning pictures with the right lens attached.

To the OP: Get the IS version, you'll only want IS if you don't.
 
on the money question - the body prices seem to fall of a cliff - the technology is changing so rapidly that this years model seems to be far behind last years

the glass however is pretty static, and degradation is is pretty rare in most cases - fungus, dust and scratches are the things to look out for - but this years 70-200 is almost identical to one bought 4 years ago - so all you've got to loose is the warranty - and you can alsways sell on a second hand glass at almost no loss
 
I have used all 4 canon 70-200's and they are all superb.
I am not sure that a 70-200 will be long enough for what you want I would have a look at maybe a sigma 120-300
or a canon 300f4L
 
Go for the IS version.I have it and have found it very helpful in certain situations...:)
 
For sports, get the non-IS version and spend the difference on a 1.4x extender.
 
do it, do it , do it

go second hand - get malla's at 925 - if it doesn't do it for you stick it back up here for the same price - they get snapped up pretty quick most of the time
 
DizMatt said:
I really don't understand why people put top end pro glass on a entry level body though.
Click to expand...

If someone can afford it and is sufficiently 'into' photography then it makes perfect sense to buy the best you can at the time. Bodies will come and go and wear out, but top quality glass will last a lifetime imo.

OP: Get the IS version. You will NEVER regret it, and in 6 months time you'll have forgotten how much it cost anyway.
 
my point about glass coincides with some posters complaining that their £1500 L glass isn't very good, when they are shooting with a £400 entry level body.
for me, it's like putting high octane fuel in an entry level car. entertaining but fruitless.
And elitist? well not really. I would be elitist to say that only pro's should have L-glass which isn't what I said. I just think that the glass should be mated to the body if you want to get a good result. The money would be better spent on a body upgrade and lesser glass for a bit as it does retain it's value fairly well. if you have loads of money (pro or not) then great :)

As for less than a grand for 70-200 IS...that sounds like a great deal.
 
spending more on a pro-sumer body is a nice luxury - and great if you want to blow up your shots - but new bodies devalue worse than cars and second hand ones seem less of a safe bet than second hand bodies from a reliability perspective
 
Out of interest and seeing how the IS/VR is a mechanical beast with moving parts, has anyone heard of them failing or seizing up? I wonder if it's a fairly new technology and after it's been around a few year we will start to see lenses going in for repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top