Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Sep 2012 (Sunday) 11:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do you really need IS on the 70-200 ?

3,230 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 513
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
Sep 16, 2012 21:41 |  #31

Quattrorocket wrote in post #15000900 (external link)
Thanks all for the advice. While I do expect my new addition to be a key subject I like to shoot just about everything right now as I try and learn, I had thought of the 70-200 as a highly versatile lens to add to my kit but in reading the above I am rethinking that and looking at my 50mm 1.8 as a possibly good starting point. I will look into something like a 50 1.4 or 35 1.4 as I do shoot on a T3i so its a crop although I have never been able to get comfortable on primes as of yet, maybe a good time to learn as the baby will lie around for longer than I care to shoot I am sure, at least for a while.

Another avenue to consider is adding a flash if you are worried about indoor/low lighting conditions in which your subject won't be stationary. The 430EX or 580EX flash can breathe new life into your lens collection. You might be amazed at how a little bit of bounce flash can benefit indoor shooting, even when using a large 1.4 or 1.8 aperture.

5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Senior Member
485 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2006
Location: NW PA
Sep 16, 2012 21:56 |  #32

I really find the OS on my Sigma to be beneficial. I've had every Canon version of the 70-200 (except the Mk I IS) and I strongly prefer the IS models but, I've still had a lot of success with the non-IS versions. It just takes some practice and effort to hold and steady the lens. My keeper rate is certainly higher with the stabilized lenses, though. If you can afford it, definitely go with IS/OS. You'll find the Canon 70-200/f4 IS and Sigma 70-200/f2.8 OS around your budget. I'm very happy with my Sigma.

flickr (external link)
500px (external link)

Cream of the Crop
8,453 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 56
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Sep 16, 2012 22:17 |  #33

I used a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) for a few years and it was a fantastic lens. For taking photos of my kids when they were little I always needed >1/200s anyway to avoid subject blur, so not having IS wasn't a big deal. Unless you live in a mansion :) 200mm isn't that great a focal length for indoor shooting anyway, so I use a 24-70 f/2.8 instead, usually with flash.

If I was still shooting Canon and had a limited budget I wouldn't hesitate getting another 70-200 f/4L non-IS if most of my shooting with it was outdoors in good light. I currently have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VR, which is mostly used for indoor swim meets where the VR (IS) really does nothing to improve my images (everything is high ISO and ~1/500s). I couldn't live without f/2.8 though :)

If the budget is there then certainly having a lens with IS will be an advantage for lower light shooting of completely still subjects. However, f/2.8 is an even bigger advantage if you ever shoot indoor sports.

One thing Canon has over Nikon for the 70-200 range is that they give four choices where with Nikon there's only one.

SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

Senior Member
835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Roaming the USA
Sep 16, 2012 22:53 |  #34

IS is nice to have but there are other options.

For the first couple of years a 50 1.4 will be your best friend with little ones. Assuming you are using the T3i listed in your sig.

I use a 70-200 f/4 non IS. Shooting wide open it is still very sharp. If I was going to step up to an IS version it would be the 2.8. The f4 IS at least used is too close to the same price.

It is also fairly light. Arms don't get so tired if you are hand holding it. Although I use a monopod about 90% of the time.

Act1 Photo Booths (external link)

Senior Member
626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Sep 17, 2012 00:00 |  #35


7D, S95, EOSM,

Cream of the Crop
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
Sep 17, 2012 05:08 |  #36

TheLensGuy wrote in post #14999014 (external link)
If you are shooting 200mm, you need 1/400 shutter speed.

You might need 1/400, you've no idea what shutter speed the OP, or anybody else, might need. Perhaps you need to stop drinking so much coffee; or stop drinking too much booze; or stop wearing your wrist and forearm muscles out?

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

4,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Sep 17, 2012 05:31 |  #37

I don't think it's just a matter of physical ability

I regularly gym it, I'm used to carrying heavy items and was almost top of my class for marksmanship during army training without any previous weapons experience - yet I would struggle handholding a 70-200 @ 1/320. Would probably get a 50% keeper rate

Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
Sep 17, 2012 09:50 |  #38

FEChariot wrote in post #14999502 (external link)
Sorry but this statment is funny to me. Did it ever cross your mind to save some money by not paying for a feature you never use, especially during the time you were using the 70-200/2.8 IS I when the 2.8 non IS is actually sharper.

At no point did I say we never used the IS. We do, occasionally, for portraiture & landscapes. I'd guess 5% of the time. In nearly half a million images on this particular model of lens, that still means over 20,000 images. Significant enough to spend the cash for IS, thankyouverymuch.

The Lens Expert, "Guy", whatever, I replied to noted specifically "You can't use a tele lens without IS, don't even bother". My post addressed that phrase.

I didn't even get into the times I turn off IS on our 300/2.8 (and handhold it, indoors) or the 500/4.

Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Qc
Sep 17, 2012 10:33 |  #39

IS is great on any lens IMO. It might not be useful in daylight, but in low light with static subjects, it's a must.

Adorama says I'm "packed."
13,658 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 894
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Sep 17, 2012 10:50 |  #40

I use a tripod whenever possible and base my idea of "sharp" on tripoded images. I've learned that I can't hold a 200mm lens as steady as a tripod anywhere below 1/2000 second--at 20x30 enlargement I can also see the difference, and I always expect to sell 20x30 prints from any session.

But on the occasions that I have not been able to use a tripod, IS certainly gets me a lot closer when I'm below 1/2000. It paid for itself literally the first time I had to use it--I sold a 20x30 that I could not have achieved without it.

TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

1,120 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Jan 2006
Sep 17, 2012 11:21 |  #41

I've had the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for over 7 years, and haven't missed a shot that I wanted to take with it.

However, I don't care to take pictures of batteries lined up on a table at 200mm handheld at 1/30.

I prefer to take pictures of things that move, including kids of all ages, and find that IS doesn't help a bit with that.

1DX, 1DIII, lenses, flashes, wires and stuff
http://jimlanterphotog​ (external link)

4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
Sep 17, 2012 11:33 |  #42

FeXL wrote in post #14999001 (external link)
We've shot nearly half a million images with our 70-200/2.8's (both I & II), the lion's share of which has been handheld in dim, indoor venues covering various events and the IS has never been on.

FeXL wrote in post #15003122 (external link)
At no point did I say we never used the IS.

Funny how your own earlier post contradicts your last statement.

Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

3,214 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 298
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Sep 17, 2012 12:24 |  #43

For me without a doubt, IS is a must. I can certainly turn it off if necessary. The new 2.8 Mark II is worth every penny. It is an investment. I don't know if you have considered the f/4 L IS version. Much lighter and the Is works like a charm.

Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
Sep 17, 2012 17:01 |  #44

FEChariot wrote in post #15003573 (external link)
Funny how your own earlier post contradicts your last statement.

IS has never been on in "dim, indoor venues covering various events".

Anything else?

30 posts
Joined Jun 2012
Sep 17, 2012 17:26 as a reply to  @ FeXL's post |  #45

I find it amazing that for years we shot 250 mph cars with 600mm lens on cameras with 1000 shutter speeds and films with iso's that were so much lower than anything a digital would think about with no problem. Maybe people need to learn how to hold a camera.

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,830 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do you really need IS on the 70-200 ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is tyzzex
865 guests, 256 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.