How important is IS?

[scraggles]

I'm planning on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 for my girlfriends horse shows.

I do plan on doing some walking around with it, but for the horse shows, I will be stationary, with a tripod. Do I really need to dish out the extra 650$ for IS?

Money isn't the issue. I can save up the extra 650$ if I have to. It's just a question of whether or not I really need it.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

For a horse show, with a tripod, no..the IS will never be necessary. It's only necessary if you can't get adequate shutter speeds, and need to handhold a lower speed. Otherwise, as I've found out, it's quite useless. (to me)

[Jon]

Will you be able to use a tripod? Depending on the show, it can get pretty crowded around the fence. A monopod, maybe, but IS will help with one of those, too. 'Tis better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[scraggles]

Well, I'm no pro, so the only shows I can get any business at are very small shows. I'll definitely have room for a tripod.

[Ross McT.]

I recently went digital and went with the 70-300 USM IS lens, and have very few regrets with it.

The ability to stabilize a shot is very desired, especially when your shooting slow.

I find that the number of my shots that turn out with the stabalizer on is much higher than with it turned off. Even if your shooting at 1/1000 of a sec.
Canon stated that the is on the 70-300 is equal to 3 stops. Using the f4 lens with is turned on is almost identical to the 2.8 that others are sugesting.

The manual also recommends that you dont use IS when the lens is on a tripod.

I'd recomend going to your local pro store and renting the lens that your looking at for a day or weekend and get to know it. Then compare it to the alternatives. I dont consider the 5-10% of the purchase price a waste of money like some would say. It sure beats buying a lens and selling it for 1/2 price in a few months.

I'd rather hand hold a camera using IS than have a tripod set up in an area with lots of people walking by in close quarters.

I shoot alot of airshows where people are constantly wandering about and a tripod simply isnt an option for me. Perhaps if all i shot was birds or scenery, but after having two cameras ruined by stray feet, I will never go back.

[uktrailmonster]

I'm planning on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 for my girlfriends horse shows.

I do plan on doing some walking around with it, but for the horse shows, I will be stationary, with a tripod. Do I really need to dish out the extra 650$ for IS?

Money isn't the issue. I can save up the extra 650$ if I have to. It's just a question of whether or not I really need it.

Your girlfriend's horse(s) will turn $650 into horse poo in a couple of weeks. IS will last you years. Seriously though it is very useful on longer lenses. I can't be bothered with a tripod for action shooting.

[SYS]

If the 70-200 is going to be on either a monopod or a tripod about 95% of your shooting, then I don't see the need for the IS feature. I for one almost always shoot my non-IS version on a monopod, so I don't miss the IS feature at all. So all depends on your predominant shooting mode.

[tim]

For your use i'd skip the monopod, and would consider the Sigma lens because it's good and meant to be a bunch cheaper. For me, doing wedding hand held in a dark church, IS is a godsend - pun intended :p

[MALI]

How important is IS?

Very.

Those who buy the non-IS or f/4 versions do so not because they are not important but because they can't afford it.

They say they went for f4 ' cuz they do not need the faster lens 'cuz they shoot in good lighting conditions. Naaah, it is all about the money.

If you have it, go for it. If not, get the non-IS and in no time, you will be producing tons of justifications for your purchase; I will bu using a tripod anyway, I do not do much handheld stuff; it is lighter anyways; the image quality is the same anyways, isn't it? etc.

MALI

[Skip Souza]

For your use I'd skip the monopod, and would consider the Sigma lens because it's good and meant to be a bunch cheaper. For me, doing wedding hand held in a dark church, IS is a godsend - pun intended :p
Oh Tim, I can't stand the punishment :lol:
I love my IS lenses. Even though I may be shooting a fast enough shutter speed to negate camera shake I find that IS is invaluable in obtaining a steady "sight picture". I can keep the center focus point where i want it much easier with IS than without. In low light that necessitates slow shutter speeds I wouldn't want to be without IS.

[Amorous]

After spending over $1 grand, I doubt that the horse show is the ONLY one that you will shoot. For indoor sports where there is low light and no flash, the IS is a must. If you spend enough time in Market Place here and in FM, there are "tons" of people who want to sell their non-IS to upgrade to IS version.

I totally agree with Jon. Better to have it more than less.

[Calzinger]

So would you guys suggest giving up L quality from the 70-200mm f/4L to get the 70-300mm IS? I need a very multipurpose lens that can accept many conditions, not just a lens designed specifically for wildlife where ambient light is particularly abundant. I definitely want quality and color, but is IS really worth it to sacrifice the liveliness of L?

[Jon]

That's a totally different question. If wildlife is even part of the equation, 200 isn't long enough. You'd need to add at least a 1.4x TC to it to get even close. So in less-than-ideal lighting your 70-300 IS (either one) will be vastly superior to the 70-200 f/4 +TC, since you'll be able to use a slower speed. At the short end, things get a little fuzzier,since the shorter focal length means you can use slower shutter speeds, and the L advantage will be able to come through much better. So the quality advantage really depends on what focal lengths you'll be using most of the time.

If you're considering the 70-200 f/4 vs the new 70-300 IS that Canon introduced last fall, you'd need to add the cost of a 1.4x TC to the equation IMHO, so if you're on a budget, make it the 70-300 unless you don't, ever shoot long. If you were thinking of the (very compact) 70-300 DO IS and included the TC in the equation, the costs would be about comparable. There I might decide on bag impact (which would I prefer to carry around all week while travelling,if that matters).

[OL9245]

Well, I'm no pro, so the only shows I can get any business at are very small shows. I'll definitely have room for a tripod.

If you mainly want to shoot your girlfriend's shows (is it jumping?), you will like to handhold your camera and move around the place to get more than one shoot at the best angle.

run, shoot, run, shoot. Then you need IS.
Specially for a non-pro user.
Pros shot hundreds more picts than us.
They can do things we cannot.
IS can be very precious to a non-pro in a situation where a pro could cope without.

[gasrocks]

What % of your shots are keepers? How many did you have to toss due to the camera shake? That should tell you how badly you need IS. I went from 70-200/4 to 70-200/2.8 IS because of the keeper rate (at times when I couldn't use a monopod or tripod.)

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53993&highlight=neccesary+IS

[Calzinger]

That's a totally different question. If wildlife is even part of the equation, 200 isn't long enough. You'd need to add at least a 1.4x TC to it to get even close. So in less-than-ideal lighting your 70-300 IS (either one) will be vastly superior to the 70-200 f/4 +TC, since you'll be able to use a slower speed. At the short end, things get a little fuzzier,since the shorter focal length means you can use slower shutter speeds, and the L advantage will be able to come through much better. So the quality advantage really depends on what focal lengths you'll be using most of the time.

If you're considering the 70-200 f/4 vs the new 70-300 IS that Canon introduced last fall, you'd need to add the cost of a 1.4x TC to the equation IMHO, so if you're on a budget, make it the 70-300 unless you don't, ever shoot long. If you were thinking of the (very compact) 70-300 DO IS and included the TC in the equation, the costs would be about comparable. There I might decide on bag impact (which would I prefer to carry around all week while travelling,if that matters).
I was thinking more for an all-around lens. I know basically everyone has different lenses for a given situation (ie. a certain lens for wildlife and a different lens for concerts), but I am in need of a lens that can handle multiple situations.

I assume that IS is a feature that would be necessary for an all-around lens. My question is whether or not I should go for the IS just "incase" I never need it (since I'll be using it basically all of the time) or if the L quality justifies lugging around a tripod/monopod everywhere (which I really would like to avoid).

[Ross McT.]

There is an L series with IS if money isnt an issue...
Are you intending in using any polarizing filters or drop in filters?
The 70-300 USM IS has a rotating ring on it and these filters will not work with out constant adjustments.

I know that many of the pros will argue this to their deaths; I have heard from a few reputable people that the optics between the 70-200 L series and the 70-300 USM IS are almost comparable.

Having more than you need is better than not having enough. As long as you will use the rest of the lens and not drag it out once a year for those special events.

I HIGHLY recommend going to a pro store and playing around with the lenses.
I DON'T buy from mail order sites simply for this reason, you have no clue what you are really getting. Sure you might pay 10% more for the purchase, but at least you know what your getting your self into.
Would you buy a car without test driving it?
Probably not, so go rent one and play with it.
Most stores will let you play with them inhouse asmuch as you want, but you dont get the freedom of using it in situations that you will use it.

The store that I bought my camera from (The Camera Store (www.thecamerastore.ca)) will allow you to trade up or down for 10 days. I bought the Rebel Xt on this basis. If i didnt like the way that it was working for me, I could exchange it for another model 20D etc. Or downgrade but you only get store credit back.


I have the 70-300.
It has a few cons.
-It is a bit noisier than the L series lenses since its not a ring type USM
-The end of the lens rotates preventing some filters from being used.
-Not as flashy as an L series (if you into bragging about what you have)

Pros:
-Compact
-Light weight (1.4lbs)
-Inexpensive considering features
-58mm filters
-Good image quality
-3 stop Image stabalization


Hope this helps and good luck,

[Calzinger]

I'll be concise this time since my reply was lost when Opera froze.

Does IS allow for the lens to become used in many more situations? Would the 70-200mm f/4L ONLY be usable in some ridiculously bright sunlight? If the answer to both of those question is yes, then my decision remains with the 70-300 IS.

[ed rader]

I'm planning on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 for my girlfriends horse shows.

I do plan on doing some walking around with it, but for the horse shows, I will be stationary, with a tripod. Do I really need to dish out the extra 650$ for IS?

Money isn't the issue. I can save up the extra 650$ if I have to. It's just a question of whether or not I really need it.

no. you don't. i would recommend that you stick with one of the L zooms because ring USM focusses faster.

ed rader

[ed rader]

I'll be concise this time since my reply was lost when Opera froze.

Does IS allow for the lens to become used in many more situations? Would the 70-200mm f/4L ONLY be usable in some ridiculously bright sunlight? If the answer to both of those question is yes, then my decision remains with the 70-300 IS.

what you lose with the 70-300 is a little image quality and ring USM and the latter is a must for moving objects, imo.

as far as the f4 and f2.8 argument goes i seldom shoot at f2.8 because of the shallow DOF and softness which is common with fast zooms.

the 70-200L f4 is very sharp at f4 and throughout its range.

ed rader

[Calzinger]

What makes the ring USM essential for moving objects? And how much "image quality" are we talking? I'm sure it's a much debated issue, but do you happen to have any comparisons?

What would you suggest I get for a multi-situation lens?

[ed rader]

What makes the ring USM essential for moving objects? And how much "image quality" are we talking? I'm sure it's a much debated issue, but do you happen to have any comparisons?

What would you suggest I get for a multi-situation lens?

ring USM is canon's best focussing. i lose a lot of actions shots with ring USM and i would not accept anything less.

there are plenty of comparisons of these two lenses. and the 70-300 fares very well but the IQ isn't as good and it doesn't focus as fast (does not have ring USM).

the 70-200L f4 is wicked sharp, and it's the one i use. it's sharper than the tamron 28-75 and sharper than my new canon 24-105L.


ed rader

[Ross McT.]

I agree with "Ed Radar " that shooting at f2.8 leads to a less than desirable DOF.

Focusing on a horse isn't exactly a "fast" moving item.

I've been using the 70-300 to track numerious FAST moving items.
Trains, Cars, and Jets in particular. Along with the occasional organism.

Recently I used this lens at a sealife park in Hawaii (Oahu). I had no issues focusing on a dolphin launching its self out of water and back into which lasts all of 1/2 a second.
3fps on the XT and 3 perfectly exposed and focused shots of the trick

The below shot was shot in jpeg and cropped, no resizing or sharpening have occured. This is exactly how the file came out of my XT.

[Steve Parr]

Very.

Those who buy the non-IS or f/4 versions do so not because they are not important but because they can't afford it.

They say they went for f4 ' cuz they do not need the faster lens 'cuz they shoot in good lighting conditions. Naaah, it is all about the money.

If you have it, go for it. If not, get the non-IS and in no time, you will be producing tons of justifications for your purchase; I will bu using a tripod anyway, I do not do much handheld stuff; it is lighter anyways; the image quality is the same anyways, isn't it? etc.

MALI

I've had my non-IS for a few months, and I've yet to regret not getting the IS version. For me, it wasn't "about the money"; I had it. I just couldn't justify the extra $500.00 to get the IS; I'd rarely use it, Most of the time I'm shooting moving subjects.

Comparing the f/4 to the f/2.8 isn't really fair, as they really are two different lenses. The f/4 is smaller and lighter than either f/2.8 version. And, if the lens is to be used outdoors, the justification could be made to go with the f/4 version, as the benefit of the f/2.8 may not be fully realized...

Steve

[Jon]

I assume that IS is a feature that would be necessary for an all-around lens. My question is whether or not I should go for the IS just "incase" I never need it (since I'll be using it basically all of the time) or if the L quality justifies lugging around a tripod/monopod everywhere (which I really would like to avoid).
I'm not the person to ask this. Every EOS lens I have that goes beyond 100 mm is IS. Or does that in itself answer your question?