Image stabilisation on L lens

B

Bmwjc

Messages
179
Name
I
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a new lens mainly been looking at the 70 -200 L lens possible stretching to the 300 not the 2.8 versions I will be mainly shooting sports golf, football etc with it. I've got the 24-105 L lens with IS and used it turned on and off and didn't notice much difference, cracking lens just doesn't have the convenient reach I require.

I will be a second hand lens and was just wondering whether the IS will be worth almost double the cost of the same one without the IS. The money doesn't worry me but i don't like to waste if you see where I'm coming from. If I'm going to spend extra which I don't mind I want it to be justified.

Cheers
 
Image stabilisation is useful no matter what. If you are making a consideration to go for IS, ESPECIALLY on a telephoto lens. Just go for IS. It's not just about stabilising images, it also allows you to get more useable shots in low light.

I can vouch for the Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS USM. I've had that on rental so many times I picked one up for cheap. There is a Mk1 and a Mk2 version with a £400 rough price difference.

Optically, they are incredible. Granted, the Mk1 F/2.8 does suffer from CA blowout, but it can be corrected in photoshop or lightroom in mere seconds. Expect to pay about £950 for a nice one.

As for the justification, do you think you need IS? From my standpoint, I say you would due to you wanting to shoot football. I know it's a silly experiment, but rent the 70-200 F/4 IS from lensesforhire or something and try shooting a football match without using the IS at all. Try some freehand stuff aswell as lowlight. You'll notice just exactly how much the IS helps you once you turn it on. The reason I say to go for the F/2.8 version is because it is always useful to have an extra stop of light.
 
The longer you go the more IS benefits in tele lenses. I've got a Sigma 150-500 with OS/IS and I've tried that handheld without the OS on and I have to go to shutter speeds of around 1/1000 on a breezy day. With the OS on I can get down to around 1/150 in the same conditions. On a good day I've managed to get down to 1/10sec handheld at 150mm.
7095849405_7548f93868_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

The longest lens I've got without IS/OS is a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 USM and that's light enough to hold easily but I wouldn't want to go much further personally. I did have a 70-200 f4 without IS and I could manage that easy enough, but that was lightweight compared to the IS models.
 
There are definitely advantages to having IS, but I'm not sure it's that useful for football to be honest, unless you're shooting static players with a 400mm+ lens in low light. Generally, light is key...I'd rather an f/2.8 than an f/4 with IS unless you are after a lightweight lens.
 
Football for me will be a rare occasion. The most use I will have with it will be golf. I was thinking maybe 2.8 wouldn't be necessary as I won't be under artificially lit areas or night time shooting.
Hiring one is a great idea never though of doing that before buying. Seems obvious now. If I went for the 4.5 any ideas people of a suitable second hand price? An idea of what to go for?
 
Bmwjc said:
Football for me will be a rare occasion. The most use I will have with it will be golf. I was thinking maybe 2.8 wouldn't be necessary as I won't be under artificially lit areas or night time shooting.
Hiring one is a great idea never though of doing that before buying. Seems obvious now. If I went for the 4.5 any ideas people of a suitable second hand price? An idea of what to go for?
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f4 nonIS goes for about £400 used. Adding IS is another £200-300 on top of that?
70-200 f2.8 IS goes for around £900. Seen one on here not too long ago for £925. My personal recommendation would be the f/2.8 IS hands down. One of the most useful lenses to use with extenders too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top