To I.S. or not to I.S. That is the question

[cdi]

so for the past 2 years i have been photographing for a major sprint car promoter and a couple other motorsports promoters. i use my 70-200 f/4L a majority of the time and my tamron 70-200 f/2.8 when i need the extra shutter speed. i love the tamron on my 30D , but my 1Dmk2 does not agree with it. i could be shooting just fine and all the sudden i get an err 01 message on the top lcd, have to detach the lens, and re-attach the lens just to get the lens to work again.

so here's the question. im going to be getting ride of my tamron and want to get a canon. first quarter of the year i spend in big well lit stadiums and small poorly lit arenas and the rest of the year is spent mainly at speedways and some fairgrounds. does anyone think i should go for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or just get the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS?

[philwillmedia]

Have you tried cleaning the contacts on the MkII?
I never use IS on my 100-400 even when panning and actually have the switch taped in the "OFF" position so it doesn't get turned on accidently.
For that reason, I deliberately sourced a Non IS 300/2.8 and also bought the Non IS version of the 70-200/2.8.

[cdi]

I have cleaned the contacts and i have also heard stories about some photographers trying the tamron 70-200m f/2.8 on a ff camera with the same result

[gdrMatt]

I vote for No IS

[tman152]

I vote for No IS

why? I am considering the same lenses as the OP. is it just because of price?

[Jim M]

If all you ever shoot is sprint cars, then you don't need or even want IS. If you shoot anything stationary in low light and are not using a flash, then consider IS. You don't have to use it for every photo, but when you need it, it comes in handy. Frankly, I like IS for drag racing head-on starting line shots. However, it's a true pain when panning and I switch it off or use mode 2. My other main photographic interest is nature photography and IS is very nice for that. So it's situational. I always think it's better to have something you don't need than to need something you don't have. But that's just me. If money's tight, skip the IS.

[DC Fan]

Sprint car picture with image stabilization, from a Canon 70-300mm IS USM.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/20100822b0117.jpg


Sprint car picture without image stabilization, from a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/20100822b0015.jpg

Same track, same day, same turn, same camera body, same shutter speed, different lenses.

[Jimil]

IMHO, if you are only shooting motorsports, you may not need IS lenses. If you plan on doing any other types of shooting like portraits and landscapes and nature/wildlife then go with IS if you can afford it.

[KennyG]

Those images are taken at 1/1000 which is way to fast giving the frozen look and masks lens/camera shake. IS can help with slower shutter speeds or with long lenses when hand-held. The ideal speed for motorpsort head on type shots for example is 1/320 and try doing that hand-held with 500mm with no IS on a windy day. Panning should be less than 1/250 and IS mode 2 can help at longer focal lengths.

IS, or lack of, isn't a deal breaker, but if you can afford the extra, go for it.

[Zilly]

isn't it better to have it and not use it than not have it and need it?

If you can afford it do, if not then don't . . . .simple

[TGrundvig]

I have had this talk with several pro photogs. The ones that have IS say they never use it, the ones that don't have IS say they are fine without it. The monopod response comes up a lot! If the light is low and the ISO is maxed and you still can't use the SS you want, use a monopod. That's what they tell me.

I went and shot the Elk at Rocky Mountain National Park a couple weeks ago with a pro photojournalist. He had a 300 2/8 and the 500. He never used the IS once or used a tripod. It was hand held or on a monopod. Even at dawn, he was on the monopod.

I guess it all depends on how steady you can hold the camera and lens. I can hand hold my 1D2 with my Sigma 50-500 in bright light with no problems. Most people can not hand hold that combo, it's just too heavy for them. If you have a steady hand, you should be fine without IS. IMO

[sandpiper]

Those images are taken at 1/1000 which is way to fast giving the frozen look and masks lens/camera shake. IS can help with slower shutter speeds or with long lenses when hand-held. The ideal speed for motorpsort head on type shots for example is 1/320 and try doing that hand-held with 500mm with no IS on a windy day. Panning should be less than 1/250 and IS mode 2 can help at longer focal lengths.

IS, or lack of, isn't a deal breaker, but if you can afford the extra, go for it.

+1

That is way too fast a shutter speed for motorsport, you need to get some decent motion blur into the shots to show the speed. I had to look really closely to be able to tell that they weren't actually parked, even then the very small amount of rotation blur on the wheels makes it look like they are crawling along to the grid to line up, it doesn't suggest actual racing to me.

Dropping down to 1/125th would get some lovely blur in the background and the wheels would also look like they are turning fast. With mode 2 IS and a nice panning action, you would get some lovely action shots.

[Invertalon]

In your situation, I would say you don't need IS. However, the new Mark II sadly was only released IS only (I always wonder why they did not redesign the non-IS to be honest) and the IQ is incredible. So if you want top notch IQ, go for the II... If you need something to grab a great image and don't pixel peep, get the 2.8 non IS.

Depends how much sharpness you are after. I just got the 70-200 II and after only three days, it is by far the best lens I have used. Sharp as hell all the way to the edge of the frame on my 7D with prime like IQ. And for those moments you are not shooting action, the IS can be very useful. I can reliably shoot at 1/50 or 1/100 at 200mm with no problem. Without IS, I need 1/320 or greater. You can shoot down to 1/20 or 1/40, but the keeper rate gets quite low with me. I get jittery!

It is pricey, but honestly, worth the money if you can dish it out. I am just a hobbyist, and felt it was worth it. If I ever do sell prints or do weddings or anything, at least I am prepared equipment wise :D

[damnit]

Those images are taken at 1/1000 which is way to fast giving the frozen look and masks lens/camera shake. IS can help with slower shutter speeds or with long lenses when hand-held. The ideal speed for motorpsort head on type shots for example is 1/320 and try doing that hand-held with 500mm with no IS on a windy day. Panning should be less than 1/250 and IS mode 2 can help at longer focal lengths.

IS, or lack of, isn't a deal breaker, but if you can afford the extra, go for it.

+1 ...
I find on the 100-400mm L with IS switched on you can go way slower on shutter speeds to get much wilder motion blur than you ever could with it switched off ... at higher shutter speeds its not as noticeable, but if you want to get down real low, then I think it does make a big difference.

Canon's IS lenses like this one have 2 modes of IS, mode 1 for still shots and mode 2 for panning ...

BTW I have at great extra cost just ordered the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII for exactly these and many more reasons ... some people say IS is a crutch, but lets face it, at the end of the day its the shot that counts, and if you cheat using IS, the client / viewer is never really going to care are they?? ;)