If a given IS lens gives you 2 stops more holdability..

[FlyingPete]

...what will a lens two stops faster do?

Where I am coming from here, is I push my 75-300IS/20D to the limits as far as low lighting goes at ISO1600 (3200 is too far for me, I sacrifice too much). Most of my shots in these conditions (concerts) are right on the edge, some are blury, some are OK, very few are really sharp, a mono pod is rarely an option for me due to the environment.

I can get a reaonable shot at 1/100s on the 75-300IS at 300mm (f5.6), and even the odd one at 1/50s.

I have looked at the 70-200 f2.8IS for some time, but it is still out of my reach (unfortunaltly I was stupid enough to use one for a few hours :rolleyes: , unfortunatly not in low light). Now the no-IS version is closer to my reach, and two stops faster at the long end.

If IS is only giving me two stops perhaps this is a viable option? Any thoughts?

[Barb42]

Sorry about that....I finally unloaded my 75-300 I.S. I used it for several years and only have a few shots to brag about. Mostly just so-so stuff. I think its missing that certain something. You know, the reason NOT to turn it into a boat anchor. You will not get what you want with that lens. Save your money and then sell it put towards something better. Getting what you can afford in quality is better than a boat anchor. Just my humble opinion.

[defordphoto]

IS only gives stops for movement issues, not light. Don't confuse the two. Results will vary per photographer also. I suggest testing one before forking out the money. IS is nice, but it's not a cure-all.

[gasrocks]

If you are not good at holding the camera still - IS won't help much. If you are already good at that - IS is wonderful.

[defordphoto]

Exactly.

[nosquare2003]

Most of my shots in these conditions (concerts) are right on the edge, some are blury, some are OK, very few are really sharp, a mono pod is rarely an option for me due to the environment.


When you say blurry, do you mean the whole picture (say background) is blurry or just the performer?

[Skip Souza]

If the performers that you are photographing are moving much at all then IS won't help much. What you need is a faster lens. If you need the whole 300mm then you have a real problem. Check your pix. If you can do with 200mm then the 70-200 f/2.8 L is the ticket. If you can get closer then the 135mmL f/2.0 would work. Remember, quality costs.

[tim]

I think Pete's asking if it's worth giving up the IS of the 300mm lens for the faster F2.8 lens. If you can hold the non-IS lens reasonably still then yes, but if not, no, IMHO.

[chansh]

I used the 70-300 DO IS. And I can get OK image at 300mm f5.6 1/50s & hand held. But I would love a faster lens.

[Skip Souza]

Nice capture. I love my DO but you are talking about a lot more money here. Also the DO IS will stop camera movement but not subject movement.

[chansh]

Also the DO IS will stop camera movement but not subject movement. So that why I dream of a fast lens.

[FlyingPete]

I think Pete's asking if it's worth giving up the IS of the 300mm lens for the faster F2.8 lens. If you can hold the non-IS lens reasonably still then yes, but if not, no, IMHO.

Got it in one.

Sounds like the much improved optics will go a long way too.

Generally when I get a blury image on the 75-300, it is the whole image thus suggesting a camera shake issue. Sometimes I get a blury performer, the higher shutter speed of a faster lens will help those shots.

I have also recently used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, seemed like a nice lens however the focus whilst acurate enough had nothing on the Canon's speed.

[Longwatcher]

Please note that the one true advantage to IS over larger aperture is keeping a deeper Depth of Field using IS. f2.8 can be a little too shallow at times.

Also my experience with 70-200/2.8L IS is it gets 2-3 stops improvement which makes it even more more handy to have IS. But a 70-200/2.8 non-IS would be better then a 75-300 IS or 70-300 DO IS for quality.

Just my experience and opinion,