Do i really need IS for low light action shots?

JannaLee

JannaLee

Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
Hi and thank you for your time :)

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 lens... just not sure if I need to get the IS one or not? Being a $1000 difference, I wish money wasn't an issue.. I mainly interested in shooting equine sports, with some be indoor at night.
 
You won't want motion blur shooting horses and if you're indoors you'll need the 2.8 as it gets very dark in the winter months. You can't use flash..

Edit:: What body are you using?
 
Jayst84 said:
It will help reduce blur from you moving whilst holding it, but will do nothing for motion blur in the subject.

IS can open up some extra options to you, but it's less useful for stock standard action shots where you want to freeze the subject.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, sort of.

If you have enough light to shoot at, say, 1/500th to freeze the action, and you have reasonable technique, and you don't have crowds of people jostling your elbows, then IS won't really do anything for you.

On the other hand, if the light is really poor, then IS could make the difference between getting a shot of some sort (e.g. panning with the horse, and accepting that its legs will be a bit blurred) and getting nothing. If you will be shooting in those conditions then IS could be invaluable.

And your ability to hold the camera steady is relevant too. At f=200mm, the rule of thumb is that shutter speeds of *roughly* 1/250th or faster shouldn't be affected by camera shake even without IS. But everybody is different. If your hands are shakier than average, or if you're excited or nervous and producing adrenaline, or if you're in a situation where you don't have the opportunity to set yourself up in a stable position, then again IS can save the day.
 
JannaLee said:
Hi and thank you for your time :)

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 lens... just not sure if I need to get the IS one or not? Being a $1000 difference, I wish money wasn't an issue.. I mainly interested in shooting equine sports, with some be indoor at night.
Click to expand...

Unless the arena is very well lit, and they often are not, you will find even an F2.8 lens struggles at night.

As Gary said, a faster lens is king here.
 
I shoot a lot of indoor equestrian. Pretty well every arena is poorly lit. I use a70-200 2.8 with the VR (IS) turned off.

In the winter it's at 2.8 1/250th ISO 6400 pretty much the starting point. I have shot with a 7D and fast prime but I need the flexibility of a zoom. Some arenas have a little daylight added to fluorescent, may help in keeping the ISO down.
 
trevorbray said:
I shoot a lot of indoor equestrian. Pretty well every arena is poorly lit. I use a70-200 2.8 with the VR (IS) turned off.

In the winter it's at 2.8 1/250th ISO 6400 pretty much the starting point. I have shot with a 7D and fast prime but I need the flexibility of a zoom. Some arenas have a little daylight added to fluorescent, may help in keeping the ISO down.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Think I'll go get the Canon 70-200 non IS and take things from there.. Guess I can always sell and upgrade! The IS one is just out of my reach at the moment..
 
look at the tamron, I think it has better light transmittion, and is cheaper
its the t value
 
IS is a hindrance for anything other than static low light shots, IMO. When it spins up it introduces blur, and for motion it helps little (even the horizontal panning detection isn't all it's cracked up to be).

If you're after blur-free shots, then your chosen photo subject is the old 'bats by moonlight' issue. Fast lenses and high ISO's are where you need to be, as you're starting off knowing the sort of shutter speeds you need to get sharper shots. I normally prefer ISO's up rather than fast glass, but in a situation like this you'd better have both. Unless, of course, you can light the scene yourself or figure an artistically pleasing means of using the motion blir to good effect.

The 70-200 non IS coupled with ISO's you'd normally hate should do it in the lowest light. Noise ninja or similar will rescue even the grainiest shots more than you think.
 
danbroad said:
IS is a hindrance for anything other than static low light shots, IMO. When it spins up it introduces blur, and for motion it helps little (even the horizontal panning detection isn't all it's cracked up to be).
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with this.

Let's start from the fact that IS does work. How well it works depends on the lens and your technique, but in some modern lenses such as the 70-200/2.8 II and the 200/2 it has been tested and shown to deliver up to 4 or even 5 stops of improvement. In simple terms that means your shutter speed can be 10 or 20 times slower before camera shake affects you.

I'm not claiming it's a panacea. Of course you want to keep your shutter speed high for action shots, and the way to do that is fast glass (did anyone mention how awesome the 200/2 is?) and high ISO.

But what do you do when you're using your fastest lens wide open, and you've got the ISO cranked up as high as you can get away with, and the shutter speed is *still* only say 1/60th to 1/250th? Without IS, you pack up and go home. With IS, you keep shooting and hope that you can manage the inevitable motion blur in a way that is acceptable.
 
PS Here's a great illustration of how motion blur can work to your advantage.

Compare the two photos of Usain Bolt winning the 100m at the Beijing Olympics from the Guardian and the Daily Mail. Those two photos were take in the same split-second from almost identical vantage points, but the Guardian one is much more interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top