70-200mm... IS or NOT?

[jrjphoto]

Ok, so I want to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM but I want to know whether or not I'm going to need to spend the extra ~$600 for the IS version.

Here's the specs on my decision making for those who don't enjoy reading very much:


I'll be shooting night-time sports so either lens will do
Weather sealing doesn't matter since I can buy a cover or (at worst) put a shopping bag over the lens
I don't expect to use it for weddings since I like to walk up to the subject
I'll use the lens for portrait work but 1. I have lights, 2. I use the sunSo I guess my question is: DO I NEED IMAGE STABILIZER TO CAPTURE ACTION-STOPPING SPORTS PHOTOS?

Of course, the answer is NO.

So, somebody tell me why I need IS to shoot action-stopping sports photos. :)

[grego]

You don't need, but it can help.

IS prevents handshake blur. You can still have handshake blur even when doing sports at around 1/500 for example.

I've sometimes shot one handed with my 70-200 2.8 IS, while shooting(in my ghetto remote style) my 16-35 on the ground at the same basketball play. I need to post it, but first got to edit it.

So you don't need, but it can help.

[jrjphoto]

Excellent. I'd love to see the photo, grego. This is one of those "I know I'm gonna need it, but do I need it right now right now right now?!" Because $1700 is a lot of cash, ya know?

[ghms421]

There will be at least one moment where you'd wish you'd had IS. However that does not justify an extra $600.

[grego]

Excellent. I'd love to see the photo, grego. This is one of those "I know I'm gonna need it, but do I need it right now right now right now?!" Because $1700 is a lot of cash, ya know?

I'll try for that soon. I just have to remind myself.

[waynew]

For action shots, I wouldn't spend the extra money.
Now if you were a low light shooter with shakey hands like me, well then...

[ilovemycamera]

i don't know. i like having the option of IS, and my thoughts were that if i was going to spend THAT much money on a lens, i might as well go all out and get the one with IS so i wouldn't have any regrets...

there will be a time when you'll wish you had it or wonder how the picture would have turned out, had you had IS...

JMO

[joegolf68]

I owned the non-IS for a few months, sold it for IS and am happy I did. IS works great for me.

[rabidcow]

For action sports, no. I see no reason to hand out more money for a feature that will not freeze action. As previously stated, if you are doing low light stills hand held, them get it, if you are shooting sports you do not need IS, just a fast shutter speed.

[ed rader]

There will be at least one moment where you'd wish you'd had IS. However that does not justify an extra $600.


very well said.

ed rader

[grego]

For action sports, no. I see no reason to hand out more money for a feature that will not freeze action. As previously stated, if you are doing low light stills hand held, them get it, if you are shooting sports you do not need IS, just a fast shutter speed.

Handshake can be a cuplrit for a soft photo. Obviously motion blur is another variable, but handshake is one of them. And yes, its valuable in sports.

Is it worth the extra 500-600? Maybe. depends on the person's disposable income.

[pup]

For me IS is worth the extra $

If you're gonna spend big money for lens, go all the way! :)

[JaGWiRE]

Your going to want to use the lens at one time or another for something else, so I would say the IS is worth it. IMO, you either go IS, the f4 non-is version, or the sigma 2.8 version.

[jrjphoto]

IMO, you either go IS, the f4 non-is version, or the sigma 2.8 version.

What are your thoughts on the f/4 non-IS L? I see it is in your gear bag. Have you shot night-time stadium sports with it? How does it perform?

[grego]

Have you shot night-time stadium sports with it? How does it perform?


Sports + night time = 2.8 or bigger. f/4 ain't going to cut it.

[JaGWiRE]

What are your thoughts on the f/4 non-IS L? I see it is in your gear bag. Have you shot night-time stadium sports with it? How does it perform?

No, and I wouldn't try, this lens is unusable for me at night without a tripod (and the tripod would just be for landscapes, not freezing action), and indoors I find it difficult to use without some sort of tripod, or flash. I am going to replace it with the 70-200 2.8 IS in a few months. I was going to get the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but decided for me that IS is worth it, especially after trying the lens out in the store the other day. It is up to you, if you plan to use the lens for other stuff IS will definitley be worthwhile.
If you don't mind me add though, I don't think I'd buy the 70-200 2.8 for night time sports, or sports at all. It is a popular lens for that, but even better I personally think is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Now I haven't used or owned that lens, but I have read about it, and it looks nice. You can find it for around $1600-700 USD at fredmiranda. I think that range would be much much more useful.

[dgcorner]

If you have the spare cash then go for the IS. The main reason I got it is because I have shaky hands (not an admission of age though!:p ) and using a tripod is not always an option for me... especially in low light, no flash allowd situations.

[Woolburr]

I have never encountered a situation where I said to myself..."Gee, I sure wish this lens didn't have IS." Your situation and needs may differ.

[jrjphoto]

I have never encountered a situation where I said to myself..."Gee, I sure wish this lens didn't have IS."

LOL, I agree. Because of course I'm going for the investment of an L lens which is why I'm not planning on purchasing EF-S lenses for the sole reason of "what about the day when I can afford to go full frame and 1 and 5 series Canon cameras do not offer anything other than EF mounts?"

So, thinking long term, yeah, I'm probably going to come across a telephoto situation where I would probably need IS such as a wedding.

[JaGWiRE]

LOL, I agree. Because of course I'm going for the investment of an L lens which is why I'm not planning on purchasing EF-S lenses for the sole reason of "what about the day when I can afford to go full frame and 1 and 5 series Canon cameras do not offer anything other than EF mounts?"

So, thinking long term, yeah, I'm probably going to come across a telephoto situation where I would probably need IS such as a wedding.

Then save yourself the trouble now and get the IS version.

[jrjphoto]

Then save yourself the trouble now and get the IS version.

And there you have it. Sigh. Why do we have to share such an expensive and time-consuming hobby?

I fraking love it.

[JaGWiRE]

And there you have it. Sigh. Why do we have to share such an expensive and time-consuming hobby?

I fraking love it.

LOL, definitley. Honestly, I've used the IS version, and that will save you in lowlight situations that do not revolve around action. Shooting 1/60 at 200mm, and getting sharp photos is quite revolutionary (to me atleast.)

[canuck_newbie]

Just a thought - if you're planning to throw a 1.4 tc on the 70-200, you very well may want IS, when you're shooting at 280 mm (or 450mm equiv on a crop). You need some high shutter speeds not to have camera shake at 450 mm.

My original plan was to stick with the non-IS, but since I decided I would use this lens to reach out close to 300 mm, while at f/4, I'm thinking that IS might come in handy.

[Tareq]

And on B&H with a code you can get it with &1600 instead of &1700, if you got it before with rebates then you can save more, at least $100 drop is better than nothing.

[DavidEB]

the AF is faster on the IS version than on the non-IS version, especially in low light, on a 1-D body. For me, this was a big difference.

>>>click<<< (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2615343&postcount=10) for more details.

[canuck_newbie]

David - Interesting finding.

Was there NO difference between the IS and non IS on the 30D?? Or just a smaller difference than the 1-D/IS combo?

[DavidEB]

I didn't see much difference between any of the three f2.8 lenses on the 30D. Remember that there's no objective test, this is just my impression. YMMV.

[Big WIll]

non IS for me, haven't wished i had it ever. I shoot mainly Mountain Biking however like most photographers do do a lot more! Maybe think about hiring both and seeing??

[Tareq]

My advice is: don't buy 70-200 f2.8L IS, it is not good lens and it is not worth, i want to sell mine.

RAW
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3547/mg3463tz2.jpg


jpeg (out of camera, no pp)
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1307/mg3463nopppm9.jpg

Both shots taken @ISO 640, 1/15s, F2.8

[JaGWiRE]

Tareq, that is horrible advice. Don't listen to Tareq, he either doesn't know how to use his lens, or is one of the few who got a bad copy. The 70-200's are all amazing lenses.

[Tareq]

Tareq, that is horrible advice. Don't listen to Tareq, he either doesn't know how to use his lens, or is one of the few who got a bad copy. The 70-200's are all amazing lenses.

Then it will be not my fault, don't blame me;)

[Phil Light]

Even though I've only had it a few weeks, I've been thrilled with mine. I've taken a couple of shots hand held at 1/30 and they came out great. Not bad with a telephoto.

[Tapeman]

I sold my non IS to buy the IS version.

Go for it!

[Tareq]

Forgot to say that shots i posted above are both with shutter speed at 1/15s hand hold

[DavidEB]

Tareq, you're asking a lot from a lens. The IS is advertised as being good for 2 stops -- 1/15-1/30-1/60. The shortest FL those could be is 1/70, so you're right at the rule of thumb 1/FL, and that's a heavy lens/camera combination to be handholding. The fact that you got anything remotely viewable at all is high praise for the lens.

if you're taking test shots to judge the optics, put the camera on a tripod, use MLU, do it right. If you're taking shots to judge the IS, then remember that there is no competition out there. 1/15 handheld is better than no IS.

[JaGWiRE]

Tareq, you're asking a lot from a lens. The IS is advertised as being good for 2 stops -- 1/15-1/30-1/60. The shortest FL those could be is 1/70, so you're right at the rule of thumb 1/FL, and that's a heavy lens/camera combination to be handholding. The fact that you got anything remotely viewable at all is high praise for the lens.

if you're taking test shots to judge the optics, put the camera on a tripod, use MLU, do it right. If you're taking shots to judge the IS, then remember that there is no competition out there. 1/15 handheld is better than no IS.

I'm with you man. If you have a 1D, and refuse to shoot at Iso 1600, or that isn't enough at 2.8 and 1/60 or so, then I think you need to look at primes (85 1.2L, 50 1.2L, etc.)

[darktiger]

I say get the 70-200 IS....

[TurboDean]

Jason, looking through your galleries, my humble opionion is to get the IS. I believe you will be using it for more than your initial intent.


I am going to replace it with the 70-200 2.8 IS in a few months.

If you can afford to get the f/2.8 IS while you still have f/4, do. That 2.8 is a lot to haul around, which is why I recently got the f/4 (IS, though). You just might keep the f/4.

[jdos2]

Having cut my teeth on 100 f/4 or dimmer rangefinder lenses, I have no problem with the non-IS version.

Practice can make a big difference, and I've never found myself wishing for IS- more like a backrest for the really slow shutter shots. My throw-aways are not much greater than any other lens I have- even in the dark privacy of a karaoke bar. (and I'm not kidding)

[JaGWiRE]

Jason, looking through your galleries, my humble opionion is to get the IS. I believe you will be using it for more than your initial intent.




If you can afford to get the f/2.8 IS while you still have f/4, do. That 2.8 is a lot to haul around, which is why I recently got the f/4 (IS, though). You just might keep the f/4.

I don't mind. I want to build some muscle, LOL. My 70-200 f/4L is lacking even in daylight at times, where IS would help (I'm in Canada, and when I shot skaters at nathan phillips square last weekend, I was probably shooting atleast 1/500 sec, but still getting soft images sometimes because the cold makes it very hard to hold your camera, along with the wind.) I need 2.8, and IS would help my keeper ratio, even for sports, if it's outdoors in the cold winter.

[jrjphoto]

Let me throw everyone off for a second.......how about the prime Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM?

I imagine it would be nice to have the zoom (if not required) to capture action sports shots especially since I'll really only using one body, but still...it's cheaper and the image quality is top notch...

Any thoughts? :)

[JaGWiRE]

Let me throw everyone off for a second.......how about the prime Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM?

I imagine it would be nice to have the zoom (if not required) to capture action sports shots especially since I'll really only using one body, but still...it's cheaper and the image quality is top notch...

Any thoughts? :)

It'll work, and better, if you can deal w/o the IS. Also, a random thought is 135 f2.0L + 1.4x teleconverter (you'd have a 135/200 prime, at 2.0 and 2.8, and canons sharpest lens!)

[jrjphoto]

It'll work, and better, if you can deal w/o the IS.

I can. :) I'm still thinking I'll want a zoom, though. Ya know? In case they get too close and since I have only one camera body.

[JaGWiRE]

I can. :) I'm still thinking I'll want a zoom, though. Ya know? In case they get too close and since I have only one camera body.

Indeed. I don't shoot sports at the moment, but I still think that the best lens would have to be the Sigma 120-300. And ENORMOUS range, and 2.8. Get that bad boy, and slap a 24-70 on a secondary body or something, and you've got a sweet range covered. I don't think I'd try any non high school gym sports though with just a prime and one body though, but that's just me. I have little experience in sports photography, so I sohuldn't even comment probably.
I found with my 70-200 I shoot almost always 200mm, sometimes 70mm, and maybe 1/10 photos inbetween. I would buy 200mm 2.8 prime, but it doesn't have IS, and if I was to invest in a 200 prime, I'd want 2.0 like my friends 200 f2 VR.

[TurboDean]

I find the versatility of the zoom a great benefit, particularly with the 1.4x in the bag. With these on the APS-C sensor, I have an effective 112-320mm f2.8 and a 157-448mm f/4. Quite versatile.

BTW, I tried the lens with indoor (middle school) basketball and found that the 2.8 w/ ISO400 was not fast enough *for me* to get acceptable shots, but I'm sure lack of skill on my part plays quite a role. I turned to my thrifty-fifty, but even then at 1.8 w/ISO400, 75% of the time the shutter speed was just 1/125-1/200. Hardly action stopping, and makes me wonder about if 2.0 would do on anything other than a 5D or better, but I wouldn't know. :) I wish my camera body was better so that I could put the ISO higher without worrying about noise. On my 350D ISO400 is noticeably grainy. Your 20D should be better, I believe.

To see if the 200mm would do, perhaps you could take your 70-300 to the next game you go to, set it at 200 (or 135), and see if it is something you can live with.

[JaGWiRE]

I find the versatility of the zoom a great benefit, particularly with the 1.4x in the bag. With these on the APS-C sensor, I have an effective 112-320mm f2.8 and a 157-448mm f/4. Quite versatile.

BTW, I tried the lens with indoor (middle school) basketball and found that the 2.8 w/ ISO400 was not fast enough *for me* to get acceptable shots, but I'm sure lack of skill on my part plays quite a role. I turned to my thrifty-fifty, but even then at 1.8 w/ISO400, 75% of the time the shutter speed was just 1/125-1/200. Hardly action stopping, and makes me wonder about if 2.0 would do on anything other than a 5D or better, but I wouldn't know. :) I wish my camera body was better so that I could put the ISO higher without worrying about noise. On my 350D ISO400 is noticeably grainy. Your 20D should be better, I believe.

To see if the 200mm would do, perhaps you could take your 70-300 to the next game you go to, set it at 200 (or 135), and see if it is something you can live with.
IsO 800/1600 should be fine, my 30D can handle it. I'd say though that high school gyms you probably need as much speed as possible, lighting seems to suck there. 85 1.8 and 135L are probably good choices. I think the 70-200 2.8 IS would do though at ISO 800 or 1600 too.

[Tareq]

Whatever we discuss that 70-200 2.8L IS will still perform great and alot will buy it when they can afford it, with 70-200 f2.8L IS i can have 4 lenses in one (70-200 f2.8L non IS, 70-200 f4L non IS, 70-200 f4L IS), i don't care about IQ as i believe they all are almost the same and those tests everywhere are something changeable due to conditions and photographers and usage, so i got the top of 4 lenses anyway.

I posted that shots to show how i can handhold @2.8 and 1/15 and still got good enough results, at least you never get that with 3 lenses above.

[TurboDean]

IsO 800/1600 should be fine, my 30D can handle it. I'd say though that high school gyms you probably need as much speed as possible, lighting seems to suck there. 85 1.8 and 135L are probably good choices. I think the 70-200 2.8 IS would do though at ISO 800 or 1600 too.

You are correct, the lighting is horrendous! 30D is on my wish list (5D is a pipe dream at the moment), but I'll need some serious justification for my wife-unit/financier to approve that kind of cash outlay. :)

[JaGWiRE]

You are correct, the lighting is horrendous! 30D is on my wish list (5D is a pipe dream at the moment), but I'll need some serious justification for my wife-unit/financier to approve that kind of cash outlay. :)
I might try shooting some this semestar. Problem is, the young lady who runs the yearbook commodity told me you had to sign up at the beginning of the year. Valentines day I plan to go shooting some candids around the school, so I'm sure I'll turn a few faces, and once she sees my camera she'll change her mind LOL. I politely told her thanks when she said she'll let me know if they need any photos or anything, I figured being cocky and bragging about my camera would be below even MY morals :lol:.

[grego]

My advice is: don't buy 70-200 f2.8L IS, it is not good lens and it is not worth, i want to sell mine.



That funny dude. I'd say a great amount of my portfolio is from that lens(with one of the various Canon bodies I've used over time).
4 of my sportshooter images are with that lens(like the Kobe one).

[JaGWiRE]

That funny dude. I'd say a great amount of my portfolio is from that lens(with one of the various Canon bodies I've used over time).
4 of my sportshooter images are with that lens(like the Kobe one).

But like Tareq, you shoot sports at 1/15 second and expect good results, right :lol::lol::rolleyes:.

[grego]

BTW, I tried the lens with indoor (middle school) basketball and found that the 2.8 w/ ISO400 was not fast enough *for me* to get acceptable shots, but I'm sure lack of skill on my part plays quite a role. I turned to my thrifty-fifty, but even then at 1.8 w/ISO400, 75% of the time the shutter speed was just 1/125-1/200. Hardly action stopping, and makes me wonder about if 2.0 would do on anything other than a 5D or better, but I wouldn't know. :) I wish my camera body was better so that I could put the ISO higher without worrying about noise.

You will have to deal with noise regardless. There's basically no gym that you can do close to ISO 400 at(unless you are hooked up to strobes).

Noise is better than not getting the shot at all because your shutter is too slow.

[JaGWiRE]

You will have to deal with noise regardless. There's basically no gym that you can do close to ISO 400 at(unless you are hooked up to strobes).

Noise is better than not getting the shot at all because your shutter is too slow.

I'm not sure about NBA and professional stadiums, but I think high school gyms and college gyms alike both are minimum 800 ISO, and usually 1600 ISO, even if your shooting 2.0, right?

[TurboDean]

Agreed, there will be noise. Mine look real bad, though, at least IMO. Just expected more from the hype. :)

Do you find the 30D results good?

[JaGWiRE]

Agreed, there will be noise. Mine look real bad, though, at least IMO. Just expected more from the hype. :)

Do you find the 30D results good?
Haven't done much sports, but 30D noise is a lot better then Rebel XT regardless. I can deal with ISO 1600. Outdoors I don't fret going to 800, even in daylight, if I need it. ISO 1600 is tolerable, not great by any means, but a lot better then my friends XT I think. You can always use noise reduction software (seems to soften the image though), and if you compose properly and don't need to crop, ISO 1600 should be fine. Atleast on my 30D from my experiences.

[Big Hands]

Ok, stop the hand-wringing already.

Buy a used 70-200 f/2.8L (start with this one only because it is the cheaper of the two). Use it for a few months. If you find yourself longing for IS, sell the the used lens for what you paid and get the IS version and live happily ever after.

If you decide the non-IS is fime for your purposed and you'd rather spend the money elsewhere, you have two choices: 1) keep the one you have 2) sell the used one for what you paid for it and buy a bright shiny new one that includes a warranty.

Everybody has their reasons for choosing the lenses they choose. Get the lens that's best for you.

[JaGWiRE]

Ok, stop the hand-wringing already.

Buy a used 70-200 f/2.8L (start with this one only because it is the cheaper of the two). Use it for a few months. If you find yourself longing for IS, sell the the used lens for what you paid and get the IS version and live happily ever after.

If you decide the non-IS is fime for your purposed and you'd rather spend the money elsewhere, you have two choices: 1) keep the one you have 2) sell the used one for what you paid for it and buy a bright shiny new one that includes a warranty.

Everybody has their reasons for choosing the lenses they choose. Get the lens that's best for you.
The 2.8L can be found pretty cheap, saw one for $999 USD I think the other day used. If you buy used, it's not a bad idea, because then you don't really take a hit if you sell it and decide to upgrade to IS.

[S.Horton]

IS mode 2 definitely helps in w/sports indoors. I'm lucky if I can get ISO 1600 1/200.

I tried without IS, and deleted the pics in camera; you can tell right away. They definitely show the shake.

Recc. you rent one, give it a ride.

Even if I didn't use that lens for indoor sports, I'd still own it -- Absolutely the best I have in the bag and worth the $$$.

Someone asked about noise in the 30D - I do shoot at ISO 3200 when I have to, and it cleans up well PP, Noiseware, 16 bit mode CS2. The key is proper exposure. If you underexpose, no PP is going to save it.

[ErikM]

Buy the 70-200 2.8 IS and never look back :D

[tracer bullet]

Interesting. I expected I had an answer, but there's a lot of good reasons for and against it.

For me, the way I shoot, I wouldn't need IS on that lens (disregard the fact that I own a 70-300 with IS). When I have that lens on, I'm almost certainly going to be using my tripod at the same time, and just don't need it. Scenery type shots, still life, etc. On the other hand, my wider lenses, I definitely want it. Even if the lens stops down, and some people would say it opens up so wide (1.4 or 2.8 for example) that you shouldn't need IS, I'm really glad to have it. Indoors without flash, situations like that.

In other words, it simply depends on what you want to shoot. Some people would need it, some would not, because they are interested in totally different results. Of ocurse, this is pretty obvious and I'm typing something everyone should or does already know...

[Tareq]

That funny dude. I'd say a great amount of my portfolio is from that lens(with one of the various Canon bodies I've used over time).
4 of my sportshooter images are with that lens(like the Kobe one).

you didn't get what i was meaning? i was kidding for sure.
this lens is MUST.

[grego]

I'm not sure about NBA and professional stadiums, but I think high school gyms and college gyms alike both are minimum 800 ISO, and usually 1600 ISO, even if your shooting 2.0, right?

About. Depends. USC's new Galen Center, I did ISO 500 with shutter speed of like 1/640 or 1/800. Probably could have done 1/400 at ISO 400.

Actually, with basketball gyms you could be doing 800 or 1000 or 1250 depending upon how good the lighting is. With strobes it doesn't matter though.

you didn't get what i was meaning? i was kidding for sure.
this lens is MUST.

Yeah, I forgot, its Tareq!!! How could I.... haha guess i need sleep.

[Tareq]

About. Depends. USC's new Galen Center, I did ISO 500 with shutter speed of like 1/640 or 1/800. Probably could have done 1/400 at ISO 400.

Actually, with basketball gyms you could be doing 800 or 1000 or 1250 depending upon how good the lighting is. With strobes it doesn't matter though.



Yeah, I forgot, its Tareq!!! How could I.... haha guess i need sleep.

Good Night and sleep well;)

don't DREAM alot. [Sweet CANON Dreams anyway].

[websurfer]

Tareq, that is horrible advice. Don't listen to Tareq, he either doesn't know how to use his lens, or is one of the few who got a bad copy. The 70-200's are all amazing lenses.

A bad copy of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS? - That should be IMPOSSIBLE for a lens in this price tag!!!!!!

[Tareq]

A bad copy of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS? - That should be IMPOSSIBLE for a lens in this price tag!!!!!!

Even i got bad copy, i paid more than the price online ($2200), so i will never accept mine is a bad copy even it is true bad.

[digitaljoe]

QC on the 2.8 is spotty to say the least. At 2.8 it is not sharp - at f4 I think the new f4 lens outguns it.

[pparker]

If you haven't looked at the "Lens sample archive" at the top of this page, I suggest you do so. Personally, I believe this lens provides stellar performance on my 5 D and I would encourage anyone to get this lens.

[ErikM]

If you haven't looked at the "Lens sample archive" at the top of this page, I suggest you do so. Personally, I believe this lens provides stellar performance on my 5 D and I would encourage anyone to get this lens.

Agreed. I have nothing but good things to say about this lens. Mine is super sharp at 2.8 and even sharper stopped down a bit.

[digitaljoe]

Problem with the 2.8 there seem to be a lot of soft lenses out there too. Take a look at the full size examples at http://www.pixel-peeper.com/. And Photozone seems have have its second 2.8 lens with centering problems. The first was so bad they had to redo the test with a second. And there are still problems with the second.

This is what they said:
"At this stage I will not provide a final verdict due a centering problem in the tested samples. Nonetheless I would like to note that the QC issues with image stabilization lenses (Canon or Nikon) are getting worrisome from a testing perspective. "

If you are spending not far off $2000 this is unacceptable.

[RedMatrixXRS]

mine seems sharp except at 200mm @ f/2.8.