Non IS Tough to shoot with?

Hello everyone, I just bought a 70-200L Non IS. I've never owned a non IS lens before and was just wondering how tough they are to shoot. Am I going to experience a lot of blur? Sorry for the dumb question.

Here is a rule of thumb, memorize it and use it as a starting point. The minimum shutter speed for handholding a full frame camera is 1/focal length. So with your new lens zoomed all the way out you could safely hold it a 1/200 of a shutter speed without blur. If you have an aps-c or crop body, then you need to factor in the 1.6 crop, so your minimum shutter speed would increase to 1/320 of a second fully zoomed out. Keep in mind this is a general guidline, some people are more steady than others.

It all depends on how steady your hold is. There are techniques that will help with this. Somebody has just started a slow shutter speeds thread, where I posted this: Shot at 1/80 @ 300 mm on a Sigma 28-300 superzoom, so way under 1/FL.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alan-evans/8642979949/

Just takes practice. Do what you can to get your shutter speed up. You may have to sacrifice numbers somewhere else. Also get your elbows in and or brace on something if available. A tripod is always a big help for me with my 400mm (when I can use one that is).

You can get sharp shots without IS, i'd say IS is no requirement for sharp shots. IS can give you soft shots if you click away before the lenses have been fully stabilised within the lensbody.

I'm shooting everything without IS and never had an issue with shakeblur even at slow shutterspeeds.

/ Magnus

jamie_s_72 wrote in post #16532314
Hello everyone, I just bought a 70-200L Non IS. I've never owned a non IS lens before and was just wondering how tough they are to shoot. Am I going to experience a lot of blur? Sorry for the dumb question.

Entirely depends on the situation. If you are doing panning shots of a moving subject, IS is not needed, and when I had an IS lens I turned it off to help with AF speed. However, I used to have the 70-200 f4 non IS and shot 99% of the time on a tripod so blur was not a problem. That said, f4 is quite slow and either need to keep ISO up or SS up or both. But like I said, depends on a lot of factors.

jamie_s_72 wrote in post #16532314
Hello everyone, I just bought a 70-200L Non IS. I've never owned a non IS lens before and was just wondering how tough they are to shoot. Am I going to experience a lot of blur? Sorry for the dumb question.

No.

Not unless you're physically incapable of holding the lens steady or are using the lens and camera in a manner where you have an extremely slow shutter.

Properly exposed images from a non-stabilized 70-200mm f/2.8 lens will likely look like these examples, which came from a non-stabilized Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 unit that was operated handheld.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …1120a0029_zps5f​ff5454.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …407a0619a_zps6c​1ad2c8.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …915a0000a_zps28​70068f.jpg

No, keep the shutter speed around 1/250 and up you would be fine.

If your my age (56) and cannot hold a heavy camera anymore like you used to, IS is a savior except my 24-70 2.8 doesn't have it and I have a certain percentage of blurry or out of focus images. Could be due to my back button focus also but I find myself not being able to hold my 50d with battery grip as solid as I used to.

None of my lenses have IS. There is no easy answer, & it depends on what you're shooting & how willing you are to delete some failures when you push the limits.
"Pre-Cruise" at 1/15 seconds - 7/28/12

There's a panning link in "Nightmare Cruise" with a happy ending.

Photobucket seems to be down at the moment. You may have to try tomorrow to see the images, but the links in the threads are active.

jamie_s_72 wrote in post #16532314
I just bought a 70-200L Non IS. I've never owned a non IS lens before and was just wondering how tough they are to shoot. Am I going to experience a lot of blur?

It depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it.

I had a non-IS 70-200mm, and ultimately sold the lens. One of the main reasons I gave up on the lens was my inability to get sharp photos, due to the lack of IS.

I shoot wildlife, and was often using the lens in very low-light conditions. In addition to the low light, I often need to shoot from awkward positions, from which it is almost impossible to hold steady. Need to stand on your tip-toes to get the shot? It's hard to hold the camera rock-steady from such a position. A tack-sharp image at 150mm and 1/30th of a second is not going to happen from one's tip-toes, when you are straining to get the camera as high as possible to shoot over the tall brush . . . at least it's not gonna happen without IS.

Running up a wooded hillside in a mad hurry to get a shot of the critter before it walks away, then trying to get a shot at 200mm and 1/30th of a second when you are out of breath and trembling from the exertion? A sharp photo is not going to happen in this situation without IS, especially when there is nothing to steady the camera against (which is most often the case).

There very often is not time to set up a tripod for such images. If you take the extra few seconds to set up the tripod, you mis the shot. Heck, things happen so fast with wildlife that I often miss the shot anyway. You really need to get into position and shoot rapidly so as to not miss anything.

If you shoot in good conditions, then the non-IS may be for you. But if you push the limits of what is possible in very unfavorable conditions, then the IS is really a necessity. In fact, the 4-stop IS available in the newer versions of many lenses is quite preferable to the old 2-stop variety of IS.

The year 1960:
"Hey, remember when cameras had a max aperture aperture of f/8 and film with an ISO32, and you had to expose for like 10 minutes?"
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

The year 2010:
"Hey, remember when cameras had no autofocus and shot on a thing called film?
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

The year 2060:
"Hey, remember when cameras didn't have IS and were a separate bulky device?"
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16536967
The year 1960:
"Hey, remember when cameras had a max aperture aperture of f/8 and film with an ISO32, and you had to expose for like 10 minutes?"
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

The year 2010:
"Hey, remember when cameras had no autofocus and shot on a thing called film?
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

The year 2060:
"Hey, remember when cameras didn't have IS and were a separate bulky device?"
"Whoa, no way, how did they shoot anything?"

Exactly - people shot plenty and achieved pretty good results without IS in years gone by so no reason why that shouldn't be the case now.

Yes it may be harder to do (limiting the shutter speed to approx 1/FL) but it is certainly doable. Up until recently I had no IS lenses and I have managed to shoot pretty much everything I have wanted to.

Learn the rule of thumb above (1/FL) along with proper handholding technique (stance, bracing with your elbows,relaxation, breathing etc) and you will be fine.

I have shot a perfectly acceptable image at twilight with a 1/2 sec shutter speed and a focal length of 50mm (couldn't bump the ISO higher without too much noise and needed the aperture for the result I wanted). Not easy and certainly not something I want to have to do all the time but by taking my time, bracing properly and using breath control I did manage it.

I've been a "fan" (and user) of IS for, well, about 10 years.

But, I've also used my share of non-IS lenses...

Just learn to work with what you have!

jamie_s_72 wrote in post #16532314
Hello everyone, I just bought a 70-200L Non IS. I've never owned a non IS lens before and was just wondering how tough they are to shoot. Am I going to experience a lot of blur? Sorry for the dumb question.

image stabilization is definitely useful for the longer telephotos but if you adhere to the 1/focal length shutter speed rule you could be OK