70-200mm f2.8 - IS or non IS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gingerweasel
  • Start date Start date
G

gingerweasel

Guest
Okay so there is a big price difference but is it worth the money?

I understand that the IS version will allow you to shoot at lower shutter speads but what would you need to do that for?

Silly question?
 
If lighting conditions are less than perfect you can slow your shutter down and be less suseptable to image blur from your movement at lower shutter speeds that you would normally be able to go.

When thinking about IS I would actually try the body with one on it, the 70-200 is quite a weighty peice of kit and supporting it while shooting can result in camera shake at first. Well thats what I'm finding and I am tending to use it on the tripod rather than hand held.
 
gingerweasel said:
Okay so there is a big price difference but is it worth the money?

I understand that the IS version will allow you to shoot at lower shutter speads but what would you need to do that for?

Silly question?
Click to expand...

Depends if you are taking alot of images in low light / indoor situations hand held, IS would give you abit more advantage over non IS lens.

IS does not prevent motion blur caused by the movement of the subject or by extreme movements of the camera. Image stabilization is only designed for and capable of reducing blur that results from normal, minute shaking of a lens due to hand-held shooting.

Think its safe to let ken explain with images :D
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
 
I use the IS at weddings for exactly those reasons. It allows me to shoot in relative safety at 1/60 sec and I can still use semi sensible ISO. Anything under 1/60 I risk getting subject movement but at least the IS helps with me wobbling!

I did test the lens when I bought it to see how far I could push it on a stationary object and I managed to hand hold a 1Ds with the 70-200 IS at 200mm at 1/15 sec and still get a sharp image. At 200mm I should be looking to use 1/200 sec to make sure of eliminating shake.
 
Unless you are planning to always use support, or work in good light/at high ISO I'd get the IS version. It's a substantial weight and IS helps incredibly.

I got the IS version after getting fed-up with the limitations of my F4 non-IS in English lighting conditions. I now use the F4 IS and have an f2.8 prime for thin dof / subject motion which is handholdable at 1/60s without IS as it is so light.

If money is an issue I'd much rather have the F4 IS than f2.8 non-IS unless sports was my main interest.

Phil
 
I have found it's not only indoors that it's useful. I was out shooting the massive AN225 (biggest plane in the world) as it was a very rare visitor to my local airport. Typical UK weather meant it was very cloudy when it departed. Shutter speeds got very low and IS saved the day really. My pics were not ultra sharp but they would have been useless without IS.

It depends what you shoot but if your budget is tight I would say from my experience I would get the f4 IS rather than the f2.8 NON IS. f2.8 IS is best of both worlds if you can afford it! ;) - Just noticed Phil has beaten me too it.
 
Thanks guys...

I won't be purchasing this just yet. My recent spending spree has left my pockets empty so it will be February.
 
The IS version is meant to be less sharp than the non-IS, people have complained about it not being a sharp lens. I'm very happy with my non-IS version and I see no reason to sacrifice image quality for something I probably don't need.
Remember that IS only helps with camera shake, it does nothing at all to help with moving objects, so slower shutter speeds at high magnifications will blur fast moving objects/people regardless.
With a 7D you should be able to get a lot of stops out of using a high ISO.
As with all lens choices, in the end it depends what sort of thing you want to shoot and, for some reason, people often seem to think it is not important to mention that in "which lens?" threads.
 
If you accept the hand-holding rule of thumb, then at 200mm on a 1.6x crop camera you should not be hand-holding at longer than 1/320sec without IS (200 x 1.6 = 320). That would be quite often for me, and I guess most others, so I bought the 70-200L 4 IS (2.8 is very heavy).

Since you are using a 7D and presumably wanting to deliver maximum sharpness to its 18m pixels, you would be well advised to raise that minimium shutter speed to 1/500sec or you might never see what the 7D can do. IS is invaluable for that.

The argument against IS is that if you shoot high speed action and need 1/500sec or 1/1000sec anyway to freeze action then IS is superfluous. Fine, if that's all you ever shoot.

To say that the IS versions are less sharp is nonsense, and easily proved. It depends at what focal length, what f/number and whereabouts you look in the frame, but the IS versions are generally sharper. Have a look at The-Digital-Picture and this comparison. While I'm critical of the way they use this test for wide angles, it's pretty good for longer lenses and the IS lens wins hands down http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
i have the IS, i really like it. i have really shaky hands so it was a must for me. however, it is quite a heavy lens, in some way I think the IS is negated slightly by your hands trembling a little more, just supporting it. I think the lens is sharp enough for me, and its a gem on FF.
 
Hi,
I used this shot on another, similar thread so apologies if you have seen it before. Not a classic shot but would not be possible without IS.
Taken with 70-200F2.8 Is. Taken at 200, F2.8, 1600 IS on 1/45.

20091115032_edited-1-1.jpg


Dunc
 
I can get sharp images with the non-is at 1/60th a sec.. rules are for wimps.
 
I just ordered the 24-70L f2.8 from Kerso so I am left drooling and counting the pennies. I think the case has been made for the IS version once my bank balance gets back to a healthy state.

Duncan what body was that taken on, the 5D?

I appreciate everyones input..
 
gingerweasel said:
I just ordered the 24-70L f2.8 from Kerso so I am left drooling and counting the pennies. I think the case has been made for the IS version once my bank balance gets back to a healthy state.

Duncan what body was that taken on, the 5D?

I appreciate everyones input..
Click to expand...

both are awesome lens, but you will end up hankering for FF!
 
gingerweasel said:
I just ordered the 24-70L f2.8 from Kerso so I am left drooling and counting the pennies. I think the case has been made for the IS version once my bank balance gets back to a healthy state.

Duncan what body was that taken on, the 5D?

Yes 5D!

I appreciate everyones input..
Click to expand...
 
PaulCowan said:
The IS version is meant to be less sharp than the non-IS, people have complained about it not being a sharp lens. I'm very happy with my non-IS version and I see no reason to sacrifice image quality for something I probably don't need.
Click to expand...

I'm not one of those who complain about sharpness, but I am one of those who finds IS/VR useful.

ISO 100, Canon 5D, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/60s, IS on, hand held.

70-200-f28.jpg


100% crop

70-200-f28-crop.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top