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.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 19 Dec 2014 (Friday) 10:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 f2.8 IS or not?

 
mrgooch
Goldmember
Avatar
3,123 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 151
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Toms River NJ
     
Dec 19, 2014 10:43 |  #1

Shooting sports only primarily baseball would you choose the IS or Non IS? Of course the price would be a factor in the equation.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
johnmaclean
Member
173 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 43
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Bridgenorth Ontario, Canada
Post edited over 5 years ago by johnmaclean.
     
Dec 19, 2014 15:10 |  #2

I am relatively new to the DSLR scene and purchased a 70-200 Non IS earlier this year. I love the image quality but sure wish I had the resources to do the IS version. The only thing I can compare it to is the 18- IS/STM kit lens that came with my T4i.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nogo
POTN record for # of posts during "Permanent Ban"
7,889 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 563
Joined Dec 2013
Location: All Along the Natchez Trace (Clinton, MS)
     
Dec 19, 2014 15:30 |  #3

Baseball has quite a mix of fast action and non action opportunities for shots.

What it boils down to is money. The non IS will do the job, but there will be the occasional shot where the IS MII will help. IMO, if you are earning money the investment value of the Mark II will pay off soon enough. If you are shooting family and friends, the non IS or some of the non Canon IS type lenses are more than good enough.


Philip

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Matt_Ferris
Senior Member
Avatar
301 posts
Gallery: 131 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 661
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Dec 19, 2014 15:30 |  #4

Shooting sports, you should be shooting at a fast enough shutter speed to where IS would not be useful in getting sharp images. I'd save the money and get the non-IS version if all you're shooting is sports.


Regular updates on my Instagram accounts.
Toy Photography..........w​ww.Instagram.com/matt.​burn
Sports photography.....www.in​stagram.com/mattburn_p​hotography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 19, 2014 15:53 |  #5

mrgooch wrote in post #17341366 (external link)
Shooting sports only primarily baseball would you choose the IS or Non IS? Of course the price would be a factor in the equation.

Unless you have an exceptionally shaky grip, stabilization is not a factor for action and sports photography. And if you can't hold a lens still enough to resolve an image at a 200mm field of view, you won't be physically capable of handling sports photography. Action sports such as baseball require constant work to track the action across a wide area - and baseball's sedentary - low-action reputation is not true. To be effective at covering baseball you'll need to switch your view quickly from side to side at an a moment's notice without warning. And that doesn't include the major changes in distant from instant to instant.

More important for baseball and any field sport is a lens' field of view. The distances involved in baseball mean 200mm is on the short side. Focal lengths in the 300mm-400mm range are more useful, unless you've decided to limit the action you will cover. A good basic daylight baseball lens is a 70-300mm or 100-400mm. .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eigga
Goldmember
Avatar
2,208 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Dec 19, 2014 17:05 |  #6

I would buy the IS simply for the image quality, meaning the version II is better glass. The ability to have the IS is a bonus.


-Matt
Website (external link)
Facebook (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EchoShotz
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Feb 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Dec 19, 2014 17:51 |  #7

As a sports shooter I've never missed IS. I had it, sold it, got the non-IS, and its all been ok. Now if you're using it for other stuff, you may get annoyed with no IS. But again I mainly use this lens for college sports and I've never felt the need for IS again.


5D Mark III, 70-200 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8 L, YN560 (2x)
-Kenny

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopherm
Senior Member
Avatar
305 posts
Gallery: 103 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Norman, OK
     
Dec 19, 2014 22:37 as a reply to  @ EchoShotz's post |  #8

While I would have a difficult time recommending ANY 70-200 for baseball, if sports are the only use, then there isn't really a reason to get the IS version.


Gear: A lot more than I deserve and a lot less than I want!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,310 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3826
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Dec 19, 2014 22:51 |  #9

Baseball has good light usually right? Is the f4 completely out of the question?
Love to hear the answer from some with experience...


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skydog2
Mostly Lurking
13 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
     
Dec 20, 2014 12:12 |  #10

Pretty much what others have said ... you don't need IS for action, but it can be good in dim light for situations where athletes are stationary (batter ready in the box, pitcher taking a sign, etc.). It's a great lens, but you're going to find it's short for a lot of things in baseball. Maybe get the non-IS version and use the extra $$ for a 1.4 extender?


www.jeffreywilsonphoto​.com (external link)
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotoGeek
Goldmember
1,120 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Jan 2006
     
Dec 20, 2014 12:27 |  #11

I owned the non-IS version for about 6 years and then bought the IS II version, somewhat on a whim. In my opinion, when shooting with good technique, the IS is of marginal value. It has little to no value in sports shooting. The IQ is very close to the same with both lenses. If you find yourself shooting stationary objects at 1/60 handheld, then get the IS version.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rcbarr
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Dec 2014
     
Dec 21, 2014 11:27 |  #12

I owned the older, non-IS version, and then upgraded to the newest IS version. I don't use the IS that often, but....the sharpness of the newer lens just seems to be so much better. Worth the extra $$, I think.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HateCA
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
12 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Glendora, CA
     
Dec 21, 2014 12:55 |  #13

Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

That being said I use the IS all the time, not necessarily for sports but I still use it. I have found I don't use the IS much for moving action, fast action can cause the IS to freak out. Most of the time shutter speed is up near 2000 making the IS not worth much. I also use a mono pod at times depending on my position on the field.

As for the 70-200 being too small for sports, that all depends on your shooting location and the sport. I shoot high school softball and have pretty much access to anywhere that is out of play on the field, including shooting from the dugout. If this is similar to your situation then the 70-200 will be good enough. But then again I'm strictly an amateur and don't make my living at photos so what I say may not mean much to the pros.

Check out this link and go to the photo album section, 99% of those photos were with a 70-200 and 99% of those are extreme crops of the originals, works very well.

http://www.leaguelineu​p.com …tansoftball&sid​=830503365 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Craign
Goldmember
Avatar
1,196 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 77
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Kentucky
     
Dec 21, 2014 14:01 |  #14

HateCA wrote in post #17344589 (external link)
Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

That being said I use the IS all the time, not necessarily for sports but I still use it. I have found I don't use the IS much for moving action, fast action can cause the IS to freak out. Most of the time shutter speed is up near 2000 making the IS not worth much. I also use a mono pod at times depending on my position on the field.

As for the 70-200 being too small for sports, that all depends on your shooting location and the sport. I shoot high school softball and have pretty much access to anywhere that is out of play on the field, including shooting from the dugout. If this is similar to your situation then the 70-200 will be good enough. But then again I'm strictly an amateur and don't make my living at photos so what I say may not mean much to the pros.

Check out this link and go to the photo album section, 99% of those photos were with a 70-200 and 99% of those are extreme crops of the originals, works very well.

http://www.leaguelineu​p.com …tansoftball&sid​=830503365 (external link)

Exactly my experience. A 100-400 would be the best focal length but, but, but, it is not f/2.8 which you will almost certainly NEED. My advice is to purchase the best lens you can afford.


Canon 7D Mark II w/Canon BG-E16 Battery Grip; Canon EOS 50D w/Canon Battery Grip; Canon SL1; Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4 PRO DX II; Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS; Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS; Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS; Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM; Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS; Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM; Canon Extender EF 1.4x II; Canon Extender EF 2x II; Canon Speedlite 430EX II Flash
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JHutter
Member
83 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 10
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Ontario
     
Dec 21, 2014 21:43 |  #15

I shoot baseball mostly with a 200 f/2.8L because it's the sharpest lens I have. I don't find it to be too short for a crop camera (70D). For anything up to college ball, I can usually find a vantage point where I can cover the infield well, though sometimes I'm wishing I could zoom back to 100 mm when the action gets close. If I'm planning to shoot the outfielders or if I have to be further from the diamond, I'll add a 1.4X teleconverter. The only time I would use 400 mm is if I'm at the outfield fence trying to get a head-on picture of the batter.

As others have said, IS isn't all that important because you'll want a shutter speed of 1/1000 s, preferably faster, anyway. But I am still considering the 70-200 f2.8L IS II just because it is rumoured to be so sharp.

The 70-200 f4 was mentioned above. I wouldn't recommend that for two reasons:
1) It is too slow for evening games, even with good lighting. (Actually, this is another reason for not recommending a 300 or 400, unless you have the money for an f2.8.)
2) Even wide open, it doesn't give you enough subject isolation. It is annoying to take pictures of, e.g., a batter and have all of the background clutter almost in focus.
I do use mine from time to time, but only because I already have it.


70D | 15-85 IS | 28/1.8 | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 | 60/2.8 | 100/2 | 70-200/4 IS | 200/2.8 | 430EX II

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

5,563 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f2.8 IS or not?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
AAA
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 ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vanillaslice
866 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net 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.