70-200 2.8 -- Non-IS vs. IS [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Sherlockoam

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 08:34

I'm the one who upgraded from F4 to F2.8 and then F2.8 IS........
my suggestion is go for IS version.....
When I bought 70-200 F2.8 Non-IS, I thought it would be enough but later on I feel like want to have IS because it gives much more convenient....
At 200mm. I can get a sharp image at 1/30 sec or if the light is efficient, I can even get to 1/15 sec.

RTMiller

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 08:38

I love IS! I wish all my lenses had it. I didn't realize how much it helps until I did a little test. Pick an object off in the distance and try to keep it in the center focus point square. It moves around quite a bit, at least it does for me. Then press the shutter down halfway to activate the IS and try the same test. I am amazed how much the IS helps me steady my shots. I would never buy a non-IS version of a lens which had an IS counterpart.

tforonda

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 08:56

You should buy the IS version. At least that's 2 reasons for spending a lot of money. The 2.8 + IS. Forking out a lot of money to get an extra f stop ? Get it you won't regret it.

HKFEVER

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 08:57

I love IS! I wish all my lenses had it.

Yes......;)

AjP

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 08:59

if u can afford it, get IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cadwell

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 09:21

You have a 100-400L IS so you should know whether IS is useful to you or not. Personally I've found it more of a hinderance than a help and I have the IS switched off more often than not.

kawter2

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 09:31

If you shoot pure outside in day light get the 2.8.. it is a lil sharper and if you never need IS it will be the best..

THAT SAID.. I own the IS model and would never have entertained the non(IS) version!!! If you ever need a shutter speed lower than 180th you now trade the sharpness of the non (IS) for camera shake and or a tripod.. I KNOW there are a TON of shots that i just WOULDN'T get had i purchased the non(IS)

LightRules

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 09:35

If the cost difference isn't an issue, get the IS. It will come in handy when you need it, and when you need it, you'll be thankful to have it. It's quite amazing.

RikWriter

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 09:35

I personally couldn't justify the extra $5-700 it would have cost for the IS version.

schmoelzel

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 10:23

I'll play devils' advocate here.......last year I contemplated the same move; from the F4 version to the 2.8. I found that I was missing the extra stops of light for evening shooting but also I had read that a lens at 2.8 works faster with the AF of many newer DSLR's. Tried an IS version here in London Ontario (hey, we live in the same place) and loved it!! Seemed a little heavy on my DRebel but the pictures were sharp sharp sharp!! Unfortunately the price was high high high!! Happened to see a well-used non-IS version for sale and jumped at it.........figured that if I am ever shooting in such low light, I would take a monopod or tripod. Haven't regretted not having IS.....for me the benefit is just not worth the extra $. Plus, when comparing shots that I took with the IS and my non-IS, I found the non-IS a little sharper and had better contrast. Shots seemed to POP a little more........have heard that this can be due to the IS mechanism. Again, all of this is totally subjective but if you can't afford the extra $600 CAD, the non-IS is a stellar lens and the AF is amazing.

kawter2

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 10:31

I personally couldn't justify the extra $5-700 it would have cost for the IS version.

I personally couldn't justify spending $1300 and missing images due to low light. To each their own.. It ALL depeds on application, if you don't shoot those conditions then you wouldn't be able to justify it

Outdoor23

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 10:44

If you don't use a tripod...IS is going to be a picture saver

RikWriter

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 10:51

I personally couldn't justify spending $1300 and missing images due to low light.

I didn't spend $1300, I spent less than $900 on my 2.8 non-IS. And I haven't missed any shots due to low light, because I keep a monopod and a tripod in my car.

kawter2

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 11:12

If you don't use a tripod...IS is going to be a picture saver

That was exactly my pont.. I NEVER mentioned that it was a lens that EVERYONE needed.. I personally cant lug the monopod arround a church or reception.. I and I repeat I (not saying all of you) can't afford to loose the image do to camera shake or having to set up the tripod

schmoelzel

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 11:38

I think we can all agree on the fact that either the non-IS or the IS version of this zoom is probably the best of this type. If you want the ultimate in image quality (sharpness, colour, contrast) you cannot go wrong with either of these lenses. Extra cost for IS is a personal/professional thing......I am sure that pro who HAVE to get the shot do not mind paying the extra $ for the IS. Amateur hobbiests such as myself can get over missing a shot here and there but still enjoy the quality (optically and build) that either of these lenses provide. I think the original question was one of opinions of the lenses compared to the F4. While the F4 is a great lens, the optics and AF speed of the 2.8 versions outshine the F4. I think that is a safe statement to make!!

Medic1

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 11:39

I can afford the IS version.....just means I'll have to wait a couple months before I pick it up. I don't have problem with shake at 200mm (even with the 1.4TC) with the f4, but then again its quite a bit lighter than the 2.8. I love the IS on the 100-400, mostly due to the fact that panning shots (with aircraft) with a blurred background come out sharper than without IS.

I guess I was looking for a little justification to not need to spend the extra $800 (CDN) on the IS version. Of course, I would want the IS version, but was not sure if I "needed" it. Any of us would like to spend $10,000 on a lens, but there comes that pesky money issue again!! lol.

Also, I have read a couple reviews that place the IS version slightly below the non-IS, but nothing significant (9.5/10 for the IS, and 9.8/10 for the non-IS). I also just read about the IS mechanism on the 70-200 2.8 causing some lock-up problems?....anyone had this happen?

Any other comments, I would love to hear them....

wilflee

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 12:04

Only you can be the judge if you need IS. I can hand hold 200mm lens and shoot at 1/30 and get pretty good results (obviously not as good as using tripod). But not every one is the same. Also, if the subject you shoot can be shot at 1/250 or faster shutter speed, having IS won't help much. Do you ususally shoot fast moving planes at slower than 1/250 shutter speed?

IS adds an extra piece of glass in your lens that adds to image degradation. If you can do without it, don't go for IS - save the money for a good tripod. Tripods don't degrade image quality.

Also, if you do a lot of panning, IS can make the image jerky.

Camo 757

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 12:39

Well if you don't get IS then get the Sigma 2.8, It's really nice. Do you turn off IS on the 100-400? If not, there is your answer.

drisley

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 18:34

I'm with schmoelzel. For the type of shooting I do, IS would be of no benefit.
It only adds weight to the camera, and lightens the wallet. :)

MJP

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 22:14

grego

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 22:43

Also, if you do a lot of panning, IS can make the image jerky.

There's an IS setting just for panning.

And I've heard of the lock up, but i know if your firmware is old, that can cause to the problem. Also the older versions might have that problem, but in my new lens which I just bought this winter, it works fine.

That lens is damn sharp though, even with the IS. So, I'm sure if you put the two images up against each other, most wouldnt' be able to tell the difference.

Just go with what your instincts say and you'll be happy with either choice.

kawter2

27th of July 2005 (Wed), 23:05

OMG OMG OMG OMG OGM OGMGOMGMGOG

I'M SOOOO SICK OF PEOPLE COMPLETLY DOGing IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T EITHER HAVE IT, OR IT DOESN'T SUIT THEIR NEEDS..

FEELS LIKE A CANON NIKON BATTLE...... If(IS) is or isnt for you, remember, it might not be the same needs on another photographer

Rob612

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 06:00

Gadget-Guy

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 06:11

Love mine to bits,have had it for 3 months now and shoot about 600 images at motocross every weekend with it and have had no problems.The IS is great because sometimes it can be a bit destracting firing a flash at someone 10 foot in the air they dont like it very much when they cant see anything but a white spot after a jump LOL.And for slower shutter speeds with panning to get some movement in the images mode 2 is just great.

Medic1

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 06:42

before you buy with the IS...canon has big problem with the IS...check this forum

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/show...0&page=0#248404 (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=248404&an=0&page=0#248404)

Thats what I had heard......after what date did Canon implement the fix? Is there an easy way to check the lens before its purchased to find out if it is without the IS problem?

HKFEVER

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 07:02

I wish my 200 f/1.8 has IS.:evil: :oops:

MDJAK

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 07:50

For me, IS is mandatory. I cannot hold a lens steady.

That said, there is a website (I'll have to find it) where it shows a test and the non-IS came out sharper. That's tripod mounted, of course.

Sherlockoam

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 10:00

before you buy with the IS...canon has big problem with the IS...check this forum

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/show...0&page=0#248404

I have never experienced this problem ever with my 70-200 2.8L IS

Cadwell

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 11:13

I have never experienced this problem ever with my 70-200 2.8L IS

Lucky you. I had the fault with my EF 100-400L IS USM and it took Canon ten and a half weeks and four returns to the service centre to fix it properly under their accelerated "Canon Professional Services" programme. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand... oh yeah I just remembered... I AM bitter about it and you know what? I think I have a right to be.

DavidinKS

28th of July 2005 (Thu), 11:27

I just bought a 70-200 2.8 IS lens and am now going to return it as I've found the IS isn't very useful for my style of shooting and the I just can't justify the extra cost for a feature I hardly use. Also, the IS feature of this lens has made my 20D lockup several times and that's just unacceptable to me.

I'm going with the 70-200 2.8 non-IS lens instead and will probably buy another lens with the money left over that I will save from not buying the IS version.

Good luck with your decision.

Medic1

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 07:05

hmmm.....this is becoming a relatively tough decision. My main points of concern when debating between the two are as follows:

1. Many reviews rate the non-IS optical qualities and build better than the IS version

2. The IS is $800 (CDN) more

3. There is the issue of the lockup with the 20D and the 70-200 IS mechanism...

.......that being said, I am a fan of IS

keep the opinions coming......I still need help making this decision

Cadwell

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 07:10

Forget about point #1. All three of the Canon 70-200mm zooms are superb optically. Any optical quality / sharpness difference between them is so marginal that it's probably down to sample variation in the individual lenses tested.

BtBam

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 07:11

i got my IS today, and it is godly. This is my first IS lens and after using it at 200mm i have thought to myself, i dont think i could take this shot if i didnt have IS.. With low shutter speeds it really is very very good, as im sure you know. But yeah.. i love this lens..

Curtis N

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 07:21

Just another angle to consider...

It's hard to argue against the value of image stabilization, but there are dozens of threads here where people compare Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L NON-IS version quite favorably to its Sigma counterpart, which sells for quite a bit less.

When you consider the Sigma alternative, the cost of adding IS is quite a bit more. Whether it's worth the $$$ is a matter of your own needs and pocketbook.

kawter2

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 08:31

I think there should be a rule that before reviewing a lens, the users must actually have shot the lens being reviewed.

ok bye!!

Curtis N

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 12:04

I think there should be a rule that before reviewing a lens, the users must actually have shot the lens being reviewed.There are lens reviews, and there are summaries of lens reviews.

One is first-hand information from a single source, ranging from precisely scientific to anecdotally worthless. The other is second-hand information from multiple sources with a similar range of credibility.

Both have potential value, neither is fool-proof.

schmoelzel

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 12:06

It really depends on your shooting. I'll do enough low-light/unstable shooting to justify it. I think I have already posted these pics but there are two shots (IS and non IS) made in very critical conditions in terms of stance and body steadiness, ad 1/25 sec and 200 mm. Judge for yourself.

NON IS

IS

Rob.....with all due respect, your non-IS shot has got to be more than just hand-shake!! I just went outside with my f2.8 Non-IS and took a shot of some printing on a container that is sitting outside my home at 1/30s @200mm and I didn't get a shot where you cannot read the print like in your shots. When I upped the shutter speed to something more reasonable, it was tack sharp of course. BTW, I cannot get a shutterspeed of 1/25 on my 1D. Is this dependant on your camera body or is that a typo?

grego

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 17:16

^^The point is the IS helps prevent the problems of handshake that occur when you shoot at such a low shutter speed.

Joe R

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 18:08

70-200 f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS article on photo.net

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

drisley

29th of July 2005 (Fri), 18:31

For certain types of shooting, IS can't be beat.
For the type of shooting I do, low light sports, IS doesn't help.
IS is great technology, but does have it's limits.

Rob612

30th of July 2005 (Sat), 01:02

Rob.....with all due respect, your non-IS shot has got to be more than just hand-shake!! I just went outside with my f2.8 Non-IS and took a shot of some printing on a container that is sitting outside my home at 1/30s @200mm and I didn't get a shot where you cannot read the print like in your shots. When I upped the shutter speed to something more reasonable, it was tack sharp of course. BTW, I cannot get a shutterspeed of 1/25 on my 1D. Is this dependant on your camera body or is that a typo?

No prob at all. :) As I wrote, I took the two shots intentionally in very extreme conditions. I cannot exclude that while taking the non-is I was even more unstable that during the shot with the IS. As a matter of fact, I tried to shoot in the worst conditions I could recreate. Not a scientific approach, of course, but I was basically standing on one foot, holding the camera in weakest and less stable way I could manage without smashing it on the floor, in front of an open window with a lot of wind. It's possible that something has changed between the two shots, since I had to switch the IS off and on. I cannot hold a 200mm steady enough at 1/25 anyway... I tried some shots without IS at the same speed in more natural and steady conditions and actually they were a little better, but not that much. I guess that I'm no good at all in holding long lenses :)

BTW yes, the 20D has that shutter speed (check the exif in the pics, the data are all there) as well as almost every camera I've ever had, its strange that you dont' have it on your 1D, are you sure ?

schmoelzel

30th of July 2005 (Sat), 12:01

No prob at all. :) As I wrote, I took the two shots intentionally in very extreme conditions. I cannot exclude that while taking the non-is I was even more unstable that during the shot with the IS. As a matter of fact, I tried to shoot in the worst conditions I could recreate. Not a scientific approach, of course, but I was basically standing on one foot, holding the camera in weakest and less stable way I could manage without smashing it on the floor, in front of an open window with a lot of wind. It's possible that something has changed between the two shots, since I had to switch the IS off and on. I cannot hold a 200mm steady enough at 1/25 anyway... I tried some shots without IS at the same speed in more natural and steady conditions and actually they were a little better, but not that much. I guess that I'm no good at all in holding long lenses :)

BTW yes, the 20D has that shutter speed (check the exif in the pics, the data are all there) as well as almost every camera I've ever had, its strange that you dont' have it on your 1D, are you sure ?

Ok Rob!!! Reading your description, one has to just smile when thinking what you must have looked like taking these shots!! Your point is taken!! I don't want to slag IS because I thought the brief trial I had with the IS lens was great but I just couldn't afford the extra $ for the IS part. If there was a huge difference in contrast and colour or some other optical difference for the better, I might have splurged!!

As far as the shutter speeds, it is strange!! But my 1D goes from 1/20 to 1/30......no 1/25!! Oh well.........

Rob612

30th of July 2005 (Sat), 13:36

Ok Rob!!! Reading your description, one has to just smile when thinking what you must have looked like taking these shots!! Your point is taken!!

Probably you would smile a lot more if you would have heard my wife's comments... :D :D :D

As far as the shutter speeds, it is strange!! But my 1D goes from 1/20 to 1/30......no 1/25!! Oh well.........

Thats really funny, I have always seen the 1/25 speed in all my cameras, the fact that the 1D does not have it sounds really strange. I wonder why this difference...

shadowman

4th of December 2008 (Thu), 09:51

Top!

New opinions!

:)

Daffunda

4th of December 2008 (Thu), 10:37

I was on the same boat, and I bought the IS version like I was jumping off of an airplane. (No debt, paid it off on the first card statement) It sucks when your wallet feels thin all of a sudden.

But I shoot sport photography, (mostly indoors) and for this, do I need IS? No.

But is that all I am going to do? No.

1. If you have to go into debt to buy your IS or non IS lens, then go with the cheaper alternative, unless you make a living off of taking pictures. If you got the money, then by all means, go for it. It won't hurt to have IS.

2. Are you sure that you will not use your non IS lens in any other situations? (like indoor church weddings, etc) then by all means, go for the non IS.

It is like having fog lights on your car. Do people need it? No. Does it help you in bad weather? Yes. But then you have to ask yourself, are you sure you will not drive in bad weather? If your car is a summer car in California, then the answer will be yes. If you live in Colorado or kentucky with snow and fog, then you would want one. Stupid metaphor, but you get my point.

drisley

4th of December 2008 (Thu), 15:24

I was lucky, back when I bought my IS version this time last year, our dollar was worth more than the U$ dollar, and BH had a special promo code, so I bought it for $1300cdn shipped, which was less than I had paid for the non-IS version a couple years previously.

So, I got the best of both worlds, price, and IS. While I wasn't sure if I was getting as sharp results initially compared to the non-IS, calibration fixed that, and after shooting a LOWLY lit theatre venue with IS and 1D3 combo, I was BLOWN away with the detail! Sharp/clean hand held shots at ISO3200, 200mm, and only 1/60s shutter speeds.

Nirvana!:shock:

(Edit: I just found my above posts where I was negging IS... while it won't help with sports or fast moving objects, if you ever shoot in a theatre environment and don't want the limitations of fast primes, the 70-200/IS can't be beat!)

aldek123

4th of December 2008 (Thu), 17:51

If you ever shoot when flying IS provides a great benefit (worked great for me). The question is how often do you need f/2.8? How about upgrading to a 70-200mm IS 4.0L with the best four stop IS there is? (best choice especially if weight/size is a factor). With the extra money you can even buy an 85mm f/1.8 for those evening low lights hots.

Mast3rChi3f

6th of December 2008 (Sat), 16:01

You can see some differences between them

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/103131058_4ef3a35fa8.jpg?v=0

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/34/103130408_1d7c312018.jpg?v=0

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/103131860_031615363d.jpg?v=0

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM - IS OF
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/103131388_70bf068a86.jpg?v=0

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM - IS ON
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/103137145_e29820c2b6.jpg?v=0

http://flickr.com/photos/anthonygrimley/sets/72057594068699882/

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/resolution_images/aps_c_eyes.jpg

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm
I have the same problem as you, I do a lot of landscape and don't know which one to buy.:confused:

drisley

6th of December 2008 (Sat), 21:25

Don't always believe what you see on that wlcastleman site.

On his same 70-200 IS review, he shows comparisons with the 135L,and 85L, and the non-IS zoom. His crops are of the eyes,and the IS lens is always softer. BUT, what he doesn't mention, and what may not be obvious to some, is that his IS lens is back focusing. If he had showed a crop of the "ducky earings", the IS is sharper at that point than all the other lenses.

I find that more often than most lenses, the 70-200IS suffers more from focus calibration out of factory. Once you get it calibrated, it's VERY good. I remember the 24-70L used to be bad for this many years ago, but Canon quality control has really fixed the issue with that lens about 3 years ago (it still happens, but it's MUCH more rare now).