Shall I Trade Up to 70-200mm f2.8L IS

[raylks]

I own a 70-200mm f4L already and I am cosidering to trade up to the same focal length f2.8L IS. I wanna if the latter lens can help me in panning.

[cmM]

IS can proove helpfull (mode 2)

[jfred]

if you trade up, can I make you an offer for your 70-200 f4?

I've been vaccilating about biting the bullet on the 70-200 f2.8 IS, and I just can't convince myself that its worth it (for my purposes) right now. Your mileage may be totally different of course.

[tim]

I keep um-ing and ah-ing over the 2.8 IS, I think i'm just going to be done with it and buy it. If I don't like it or don't use it, i'll try and force myself to sell it... I don't think that's likely though!

Yes, the 2.8 IS will help you in panning.

[Phil V]

No the IS lens won't help you in panning. Practice will help, IS mode 2 won't turn you into a pro sports shooter. Search this site for good panning shots and check the equipment of the people that took them, do they all have IS lenses? I'd bet not.

You can't buy skills by paying for fancy glass, you need to learn to work with what you have.
If you want us to justify buying new toys, then sure buy it. Will it help if your technique is bad? NO.
Will it help if your technique is good? You'd see the difference in max size prints or when pixel peeping. Is that worth the extra money to you?

[cmM]

No the IS lens won't help you in panning. Practice will help, IS mode 2 won't turn you into a pro sports shooter. Search this site for good panning shots and check the equipment of the people that took them, do they all have IS lenses? I'd bet not.

You can't buy skills by paying for fancy glass, you need to learn to work with what you have.
If you want us to justify buying new toys, then sure buy it. Will it help if your technique is bad? NO.
Will it help if your technique is good? You'd see the difference in max size prints or when pixel peeping. Is that worth the extra money to you?
Yes the IS lens WILL help him in panning. That's what the second IS mode is for. You're saying something like: "well if you can't take shots @ 200mm hendheld at 1/30sec then there's no point in buying an IS lens cause it's not gonna make you handhold any better". Of course no toys will replace knowledge or talent or ability to shoot in the field, but it WILL help.... otherwise no one would buy them

[SkipD]

In my opinion, the IS function isn't a real advantage while panning a rapidly moving subject. It is, however, an extremely useful function when trying to hold the lens steady for a conventional (non-moving or slowly moving) subject.

Panning a rapidly moving subject (bird, race car, etc.) requires a smoothly controlled movement of the camera/lens, following the subject with the same framing of the subject during the pan. Actually, I find the movement itself to be quite easy to do smoothly. The trick is to keep up with the focussing throughout the exercise. I do the focus adjustment manually for the most part, but that's because I have done it manually for many years, and haven't spent enough of my time to learn about all the various autofocus modes that my new 20D is capable of.

[SeanH]

Unless your constantly shoting in low light I would say NO. In most tests I have seen the IS is not as sharp at certain points (but not by much). I have the 2.8 non IS, and a buddy of mine has yours. I have shot with each and I can't tell the difference, and as a matter of fact the lighter weight of the f4 is nice when you are walking around.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh and BTW, I shot alot of Motocross, which is fast moving and have no problem with panning. Yes the IS is cool to blur the background in action shots........but is that kind of effect worth the extra money???

[Phil V]

Yes the IS lens WILL help him in panning. That's what the second IS mode is for. You're saying something like: "well if you can't take shots @ 200mm hendheld at 1/30sec then there's no point in buying an IS lens cause it's not gonna make you handhold any better". Of course no toys will replace knowledge or talent or ability to shoot in the field, but it WILL help.... otherwise no one would buy them

I believe the question was "will it help me in panning"
The answer is still NO.
The question "I'm sometimes finding I want to pan at 1/60th second will the IS lens help"
Answer YES,
The question "I'm sometimes finding I want to pan at 1/60th second will the IS lens help"
Answer, If your technique really sucks, then NO
Is there enough of a clue in the original question to make one of these answers more right than the other? I consider myself to have quite a good analytical brain and I couldn't see it.

I know what the IS mode 2 does, I have a non IS version of the lens and my panning technique is fine thanks. I'd like IS for shooting natural light portraits, but not enough to pay double what I paid for my mint second hander.

[cmM]

We’re talking mere technical terms, at no point does he mention anything about how good (or bad) his technique is, so we leave that out of consideration
With the same technique, IS will improve the photo if used properly.
Don’t get me wrong, I definitely agree with you that a $1600 lens isn’t gonna make him a better photographer. I’ve been taking decent pans @ 1/30sec with one of the worst regarded lenses in the Canon line-up, the 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM (http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug22cyc/slides/aug21cyc9.html)

[BlueTit]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 IS and love it, I have not used the 70-200 F4 so I can't comment, when I got the 70-200 it was an upgrade from a Sigma 70-300 and the main difference was the weight! The 70-200 F2.8 IS is heavy and big especially with TC 1.4 on, which I rarely take off. Once I got used to it, it was fine then I could appreciate the speed of the lens and the IS and the picture quality over the Sigma. But I would not just change for the IS alone, the extra weight is not worth it, maybe if you "need" the IS and the extra stop it might be. I found the IS good but not as good as I expected, like the others said, good pictures more down to technique and practise than glass and God knows I have enough glass and little enough technique :rolleyes:

Good luck with your choice.

[Hydro]

I have decided to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8 when BH opens on Monday. But I still am vacillating over IS or not. My primary interest is sports, and those who have followed this debate on here will know that some great shooters (gmen) use the non IS, and in fact the IS would probably be shut off at the higher shutter speeds that most outdoor action shots are taken in anyway, apparently. I have also read about the possiblity that the non IS may be slightly sharper----which adds another important wild card to the mix. However, another accomplished sports photog (Pscaiola---who posts fine images) just got the IS, and he feels differently. You can find these discussions on other recent threads.

Although my Sigma is a great lens, I have been finding it a little soft wide open, and I have decided that if I want 2.8 and want the chance at the best possible image, I better bite the bullet and go with the Canon L glass. I am willing to spend the money on IS if I was sure it was going to make a big difference or be used enough to justify the extra weight and cost.

Good grief, I have spent less time on important life decisions than this issue of IS or non-IS for this lens. I think I need therapy. [I]

I continue to follow these discussions with great interest. I guess the bottom line really is that they are both outstanding lenses, and I suppose that you can turn the IS off if you don't want it....but then there's the sharpness issue......arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stop! stop!

[cmM]

I have decided to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8 when BH opens on Monday. But I still am vacillating over IS or not. My primary interest is sports, and those who have followed this debate on here will know that some great shooters (gmen) use the non IS, and in fact the IS would probably be shut off at the higher shutter speeds that most outdoor action shots are taken in anyway, apparently. I have also read about the possiblity that the non IS may be slightly sharper----which adds another important wild card to the mix. However, another accomplished sports photog (Pscaiola---who posts fine images) just got the IS, and he feels differently. You can find these discussions on other recent threads.

Although my Sigma is a great lens, I have been finding it a little soft wide open, and I have decided that if I want 2.8 and want the chance at the best possible image, I better bite the bullet and go with the Canon L glass. I am willing to spend the money on IS if I was sure it was going to make a big difference or be used enough to justify the extra weight and cost.

Good grief, I have spent less time on important life decisions than this issue of IS or non-IS for this lens. I think I need therapy. [I]


I continue to follow these discussions with great interest. I guess the bottom line really is that they are both outstanding lenses, and I suppose that you can turn the IS off if you don't want it....but then there's the sharpness issue......arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stop! stop!

I truly doubt you will have complains about the 70-200 IS's sharpness. While the non IS version might be marginally sharper, you are most likely never gonna notice it in photos unless you pixel peep comparisson shots. I've used the IS version, don't personally own one, but the shots I've taken with is are probably some of the sharpest ones I've taken. Here's one taken on an ugly day with grey skies, slow shutter speed, handheld: http://www.cmuntean.net/images/jun23702001.jpg

[SkipD]

Hydro, if you can pry the bucks outta your wallet, you will never be sorry that you got the IS version of the 70-200 f2.8 lens. I have it and am darned glad that I went that way. I have taken some remarkably sharp shots handheld at well under 1/100 second with the lens zoomed all the way out.

Watching the image with IS working is something that will blow your mind at first. You can feel that you are moving the camera/lens, but the image is just sitting still. It's really wierd, but something I wouldn't be without now.

[raylks]

Thanks for all your input. It helps.
If I don't have any 70-200mm lens, definitely I would go for IS one. No regret and it is sharp all the way though some comments that it is less sharp than its non-IS counterpart but the sharpness can satisfy me already.
Now I have the f4/L lens and try to use lens to pan moving subject with a monopod. It turns out that my image is fine. You are right. Techniques are important in panning. I shall make good use of my equipment I own instead of upgrading and upgrading all the time. Upgrading has no end and it would only produce unnecessary spending.