handheld 70-200 f2.8 IS stage shots

[threelegsdog]

gear used: 30D, 70-200 IS without flash ISO: 400



http://www.zoto.com/threelegsdog/img/original/62b44c66f6d91cac2140a158b71084e6.jpg

http://www.zoto.com/threelegsdog/img/original/100e35f88ef56b7e36facbe471e50ee6.jpg

http://www.zoto.com/threelegsdog/img/original/059089d5a8cd7d3675f9194180b192e8.jpg

[kmb]

Nice shots, hope to see more from you. Very pleasant to the eye (and not just because of subject matter), but I'd personally prefer a bit warmer skin tones.

BTW, I'm sure most of us are more interested in what you've photograped rather than what gear you used (re thread naming) :) The particular lens is not uncommon when shooting performing arts, after all (it'd be another thing to do a thread consisting of fisheye pictures only, I might do that at some point).

[Galaxy99]

nice, my non-is 70-200 f/2.8 L can't get such sharp shot handheld

[René Damkot]

Nice. Just enough subject motion. Agree with Kalle on the skin tones in #2 and 3, but apart from that: Nice.

[threelegsdog]

I think non-IS can do better job than IS because less elements inside of lens but IS , and which is sharper than IS LENS. just remember keep shutter speed from 1/125 up to 1/250 depends on how many light will go into your lens, I am always using full manual control aperture, speed, and white balance, color, saturation etc. check it out: ( 1D mark II + canon ef 70-200mm f2.8 Non-IS handheld)

http://www.zoto.com/threelegsdog/img/1024x1024x0/d3af47112595c4cbb8e56f3bd0011e72.jpg

make: Canon

model: Canon EOS-1D Mark II

iso speed: iso 640

focal length: 165mm

f-stop: f/3.2

exposure time: 1/160s



nice, my non-is 70-200 f/2.8 L can't get such sharp shot handheld

[SYS]

I like the photos. Would love to see more of your's.

p.s. - just to illustrate that IS has no advantage over non-IS on stage shots... these were shot with my non-IS, handheld:


154378


154379

[Indecent Exposure]

Those look to have considerably more light.

I can't imagine that handheld, IS wouldn't help in these situations - stage show or no.

[SYS]

The OP's images were shot at ISO 400. Mine were shot at ISO 800, 1/80sec and f/3.2. No noise reduction applied and very little PP.

[Roy Mathers]

I like the photos. Would love to see more of your's.

p.s. - just to illustrate that IS has no advantage over non-IS on stage shots... these were shot with my non-IS, handheld:


154378


154379

Can you explain to me please why you say that IS has no advantage over no-IS?

[SYS]

Can you explain to me please why you say that IS has no advantage over no-IS?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do understand the difference between the IS and the Non-IS, including the price difference. And I don't want to play the Helen causing some huge war over this... :lol: Results are all that count, that's what I meant to say. If you can get the same results using the non-IS, who needs the IS? I've never read or heard of a pro who said that he/she couldn't get the job done because the IS wasn't available on their lens. ;)

[blackshadow]

NO advantage is a big call (and wrong in my opinion). I have the 70-200 f2.8 without IS and I love the lens but there are times when IS would have produced much better images in a performing arts environment than the non IS version - shooting Tool at the Melbourne Big Day Out is one example that springs to mind - and yes I did get some decent shots without IS but IS would have made a huge difference in that environment.

[SYS]

NO advantage is a big call (and wrong in my opinion). I have the 70-200 f2.8 without IS and I love the lens but there are times when IS would have produced much better images in a performing arts environment than the non IS version - shooting Tool at the Melbourne Big Day Out is one example that springs to mind - and yes I did get some decent shots without IS but IS would have made a huge difference in that environment.

Actually, using the phrase "no advantage" was wrong on my part -- otherwise why are people so eager to pay $500-600 more just for that feature, right? So I'll gladly take it back. I'm sure there are times when IS would have helped, and during such times I simply use my monopod. The bottomline is the results. I haven't come across that many photos on this forum where someone has CLEARLY displayed images that were taken with the 70-200 IS lens that the non-IS could not have duplicated due to the lack of the feature. When I did come across those images that may have demonstrated the power of IS, I could easily duplicate them using my monopod.

[SYS]

Oh, my big apology to the OP for my unintentional hijacking of the thread!

[bmoguy]

I'm not going to repost, but the New Shanghai Circus pics (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=251733) I took were all handheld with the 70-200 IS. I know I've got some nice shots as slow as 1/50 2.8 @ 1600 ISO. This was the first show I shot with it and I fell in love with it.

[Indecent Exposure]

...When I did come across those images that may have demonstrated the power of IS, I could easily duplicate them using my monopod.
Ah. Well, since IS is supposed to give you the freedom *from* needing a tri/monopod, that should be no surprise. Obviously you can replicate the effect of IS with a monopod - but that's precisely the advantage of IS - not superior images, but freedom and convenience.

i.e., Good luck setting up your monopod in lowlight situations where camera supports aren't allowed, like some museums and historical landmarks (churches) - here, IS would yield an image not able to be replicated by non-IS alone, all things else being equal.

And here I thought you had some secret special technique. :p

[tazrebel]

Good pics. I like the 3rd the most. How was the lighting? It looks pretty good. I recently took some photos of a stage performance which had very dark lighting and fast movement. Using the same lens i found it hard to eliminate blur. How about you?

[SYS]

Ah. Well, since IS is supposed to give you the freedom *from* needing a tri/monopod, that should be no surprise. Obviously you can replicate the effect of IS with a monopod - but that's precisely the advantage of IS - not superior images, but freedom and convenience.

i.e., Good luck setting up your monopod in lowlight situations where camera supports aren't allowed, like some museums and historical landmarks (churches) - here, IS would yield an image not able to be replicated by non-IS alone, all things else being equal.

And here I thought you had some secret special technique. :p

Ha ha! For my "secret special technique," you'll have to come visit me, and I'll show you how to make the perfect hot and sour soup! :lol: