Trade off - faster lens vs. IS

[tacos3]

I've been considering buying an "L" zoom lens for a month or so now, but I need help to determine what's more important. I shoot a lot of low light indoor action stuff like basketball and hockey games where a 2.8 would really help.

Do I buy a 70-200 2.8 lens or go with a 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS lens that allows you to shoot 1-2 stops faster than a non-IS lens? I can see IS being useful when I'm outdoors shooting landscapes or wildlife too.

I know the real answer is to buy a 70-200 2.8 IS lens but I don't really want to have to mortgage the house if you know what I mean. Or maybe I do....

Thanks for any advice.

Darren

[slin100]

If you're going to be shooting action shots, IS will not help you much. IS counteracts camera motion. It does nothing for subject motion. You'll want the faster lens.

[Belmondo]

Steven is right. IS supposedly gives us a couple extra f-stops, but you're really better off with the glass than with the gimmick. Also, when you're shooting from a tripod, they tell you to turn IS off, anyway.

Tom

[defordphoto]

IS is not a gimmick and it IS useful in sports shooting. The L lenses have mode I and II of IS. Mode II is for horizontal panning and will assist in achieving a cleaner shot when panning.

[DaveG]

Of the two lenses you mentioned, I'd certanly go for the 70-200 f2.8 if I was going to shoot hockey, which I do. IS is nice but in this case will only give you marginally better images than a non IS lens, assumming that you use a monopod. I always use a monopod with my 70-200 f2.8 non IS lens as well as wth my 300 f2.8. IS will NOT take the weight off of your arms, nor will it stop subject movement, so keep that in mind.

The other lens that you might want to consider is the 100 mm f2. It'd be effectively a 160, a lot cheaper, and a stop faster than the 2.8 zoom.

[Belmondo]

Okay, Jim. You win that one.

I thought the question was: "In an either/or situation, which would you rather have---IS or faster glass?"

I was just voting for faster glass. Obviously, the 'price-is-no-object' answer is BOTH.

In fact, I voted with my wallet by buying the 70/200 f/2.8L IS. I was sorely tempted to buy the non-IS version and wait for the Dell lens to come, but decided that IS was important enough to spend the extra money now rather than be without it when it might really matter.

As always, I defer to your wisdom in these matters.

Tom

[tacos3]

Thanks for your responses guys. I think that you can't go wrong with a 70-200 2.8. IS would be nice but I'm putting my daughter thru school(high school). I could buy an 2.8 IS lens for 2 months tuition, but right now I think I'm gonna look at non IS lenses and wait for when IS hits a high end digital body. Maybe my daughter will be out of college by then....

Darren

[defordphoto]

Well Tom, you or I aren't here to win anything that's for sure. Except maybe the Humorous Guy of The Day award. Yes, the question was faster glass or IS. My answer is, as your's is too, always opt for faster glass.

I had a battle choosing the 70-200L f2.8 also. I have two other IS lenses and do not use the IS function very often. Some people have the IS on all the time which is just silly. It wastes battery power and shortens the life of the lens.

I sat here, logged onto B&H dot com and spent 15 minutes or so battling whether to get the IS or not. I got the IS. Again, I don't use it alot, but it sure is sweet to have then it's needed.

[GenEOS]

Take it from someone who bought the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L and then tried to shoot indoor sports with it, then bought a 70-200 f2.8 L, because he did not do very good research and was shocked and awed at the massive 400mm IS lens. Buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS L, you will not regret it.

Now, if you only shoot outdoor sports with great lighting, then I would consider the 100-400. But you said indoor sports.....70-200 f2.8 L hands down.

[hmhm]

tacos3 wrote:
...or go with a 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS lens that allows you to shoot 1-2 stops faster than a non-IS lens?


Maybe I'm nitpicking, but IS lets you shoot 1 or 2 stops _slower_ not faster, i.e. it allows you to use slower shutter speeds without incurring additional blur due to camera shake.

The question here shouldn't be whether you need IS, but whether you need the 200-400mm range.

IS may be of limited utility for shooting indoor sports, where you need fast shutter speeds to freeze the players any way (you're not going to be "panning" basketball players, BTW). In cases where IS is useful, the 70-200/2.8 wide-open is a stop or two faster than the 100-400, so the advantage of IS on the slower lens washes out, except in the cases where you'd need to stop down any way for depth of field.

Plus, the 70-200 has better image quality than the 100-400, even a stop or two wider open.
-harry

[samdring]

RFMSports wrote:
Some people have the IS on all the time which is just silly. It wastes battery power and shortens the life of the lens.
Understand your point on battery power but why should it shorten the life of the lens please?

[Belmondo]

I'll jump in on this, not necessarily armed with any facts, but using my questionable powers of reason.

The IS feature is a hardware/electronic adjunct to the auto-focus lens. It is not necessarily unreliable, but it does add another layer of complication, thus potenetial failure, to a lens.

Although not directly related, I just shipped a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens back to the store because it arrived not working properly. The culprit? the IS mechanism.

Everything else should be identical to the non-IS lens as far as reliability.

Tom

[defordphoto]

samdring wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
Some people have the IS on all the time which is just silly. It wastes battery power and shortens the life of the lens.
Understand your point on battery power but why should it shorten the life of the lens please?

Because it's a mechanical part of the lens that's running. If you run it all the time, then the life of the IS mechanism itself (not really the lens) is shortened.

Kinda like the A/C on your car. You don't run it all the time, however, you could. If you did, the A/C unit itself would live out its useful lifetime quicker than if you just used it when you needed it.

Sorry for the faux pas there.

[Malaxos1]

I guess the depth of field you are looking for should also be dealt with in your decision making. For example I am considering a 45-300 f4-5.6 USM IS lens. My reasoning is that I shoot a lot of weddings where I shoot at around f5.6 during the ceremony. The problem that I and I am sure othethers have is that shooting in low light situations at f5.6 requires a tripod. It isn't easy to move about freely in a Church with a tripod so IS should help a bit. If you will be doing indoor shots and require a great DOF than I would go for the IS, however if you are looking for shallow DOF that the obvious choice is the f2.8...Dean

[DaveG]

Malaxos1 wrote:
I guess the depth of field you are looking for should also be dealt with in your decision making. For example I am considering a 45-300 f4-5.6 USM IS lens. My reasoning is that I shoot a lot of weddings where I shoot at around f5.6 during the ceremony. The problem that I and I am sure othethers have is that shooting in low light situations at f5.6 requires a tripod. It isn't easy to move about freely in a Church with a tripod so IS should help a bit. If you will be doing indoor shots and require a great DOF than I would go for the IS, however if you are looking for shallow DOF that the obvious choice is the f2.8...Dean

If you were using a 70-200 f2.8 lens, you'd be effectively be using a 110 -320 mm zoom. How long does the lens need to be for a wedding? If I was looking to do candid shots inside a church then the 70-200 would be the lens. Obviously it would depend on what you wanted to shoot, but f5.6 - especially with longer focal lengths - isn't going to give you all that much extra D of F. I would never trade down the shutterspeed for minimally extra D of F.

I'd want to keep my ISO as low as possible, still get a minimum of 1/60 WITH a monopod (and my first move would be to increase the shutterspeed if the llight allowed), and not worry at all about the Depth of Field.

[Malaxos1]

DaveG wrote:
Malaxos1 wrote:
I guess the depth of field you are looking for should also be dealt with in your decision making. For example I am considering a 45-300 f4-5.6 USM IS lens. My reasoning is that I shoot a lot of weddings where I shoot at around f5.6 during the ceremony. The problem that I and I am sure othethers have is that shooting in low light situations at f5.6 requires a tripod. It isn't easy to move about freely in a Church with a tripod so IS should help a bit. If you will be doing indoor shots and require a great DOF than I would go for the IS, however if you are looking for shallow DOF that the obvious choice is the f2.8...Dean

If you were using a 70-200 f2.8 lens, you'd be effectively be using a 110 -320 mm zoom. How long does the lens need to be for a wedding? If I was looking to do candid shots inside a church then the 70-200 would be the lens. Obviously it would depend on what you wanted to shoot, but f5.6 - especially with longer focal lengths - isn't going to give you all that much extra D of F. I would never trade down the shutterspeed for minimally extra D of F.

I'd want to keep my ISO as low as possible, still get a minimum of 1/60 WITH a monopod (and my first move would be to increase the shutterspeed if the llight allowed), and not worry at all about the Depth of Field.


Understood. For a wedding I would use a medium telephoto like the one I have, the 28-75mm f2.8. I do try to keep my SS some where around 1/60 to be able to hand hold the camera. This does require that I bring the lens down from 5.6 to 3.5 or so. The problem is that I don't want to use the lens at its wideset as I would like to keep the B&G BOTH in focus. If I am sigleing out the bride or groom than I would open the lens up.