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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Nov 2015 (Saturday) 06:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Image Stabilisation

 
larshkj
Member
198 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 561
Joined Jul 2003
Location: Near Oslo, Norway
     
Nov 29, 2015 04:31 as a reply to  @ post 17799887 |  #16

If the 100-400 II is horrible for weddings, then a 70-200 would be double horrible for wildlife. I have a 70-200 MkII and a 100-400 MkII, and the 70-200 with a 2X III TC is very soft (at least my lens is). The 100-400 is in another league. Even the old 100-400 is much sharper than 70-200 with 2X TC.

Lars




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,507 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
Nov 29, 2015 05:09 |  #17

john crossley wrote in post #17800102 (external link)
As everyone else had said 70-200 is far too short for wildlife unless of course you are just shooting the geese at Pugneys.

I thought you might like to know of at least one person reading this who knows where that is!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 617
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Nov 29, 2015 06:12 |  #18

JeffreyG wrote in post #17799720 (external link)
Sharper handheld photos using long lenses with IS. Panning opportunities that simply don't work with non-IS lenses.....what's not to like?

What's not to like? Slower AF acquisition and impaired tracking, both of which are critical to me. Additionally there is an extra piece of glass in the focal path which is not helpful for IQ. I have read that Canon did not include IS in their 24-70 F2.8 V2 to maximise IQ, I do not know if this is true or not (Canon wouldn't confirm/deny this to me) but I am loving the performance of my 24-70.

I first noticed the limitations of IS when using my, then, Canon 300 F4 L IS on flying birds. Even with a 1D4 my keeper rate was disappointingly low. On my next visit to the same Red Kite centre I used it with the IS off - keeper rate more than doubled! I soon started using my (ex) 600 F4 L IS without IS and got similar improvements, though not quite as dramatic. Later I traded the 600 and moved to the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (November 2013) with it's much newer 4 stop IS system. This performed much better but was still costing me shots so at the beginning of Jan 2014 I tried it with IS off. Again I found significant improvements in AF lock on and tracking, the camera is now a 1DX. Since then I have only turned my IS systems back on to check they still work, I have not (yet) found a need for it for my photography. Note I use my 800mm hand held or partially supported (leaning against something) much of the time.

Others have different needs/uses and may find IS very handy but for my (wildlife/landscape) needs it is more of a hindrance than a help. I would suggest trying your lens/lenses with IS off and see if it works as well for you as it does for me, if you don't like it then you can always turn it back on.

All the best.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 3 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Nov 29, 2015 08:07 |  #19

johnf3f wrote in post #17800171 (external link)
Additionally there is an extra piece of glass in the focal path which is not helpful for IQ. I have read that Canon did not include IS in their 24-70 F2.8 V2 to maximise IQ, I do not know if this is true or not (Canon wouldn't confirm/deny this to me) but I am loving the performance of my 24-70.

Yeah, and I'm loving the sharpness of my 70-200 IS II. I guess I'm OK leaving the design of the lens up to Canon and just evaluating based on performance. Instead of worrying about whether an IS element set degrades the theoretical maximum sharpness potential of a lens design I just look at the performance of the 70-200/2.8 IS II, the 100-400 IS II and the 70-300L IS (not to mention the 300/2.8 IS II, 400/2.8 IS II, 500/4 IS II, 600/4 IS II) and I don't see the problem.

Others have different needs/uses and may find IS very handy but for my (wildlife/landscape) needs it is more of a hindrance than a help. I would suggest trying your lens/lenses with IS off and see if it works as well for you as it does for me, if you don't like it then you can always turn it back on.

All the best.

And that's what I do. I'll admit I have not noticed any AF tracking problems with IS on, but I do tend to turn it off anyway when I'm shooting subjects that are moving fast.

Also, I'm kind of surprised you don't find it useful for wildlife (thinking of critters other than birds). So much of that photography is in low light, long distances and relatively slow moving subjects.

To sum up, I don't see any downsides to IS. Canon offers several stunning lenses that have IS as a mentioned above. In fact, Canon's highest resolving lenses all include IS. I was kind of curious about your statement that you would actively avoid IS. When you don't need the IS, you can turn it off. But if the lens lacks IS, you can't turn it on when you do need it.

There are a few specialists (full-time sports photography?) who might literally never make use of IS. But I think most people are generalists enough that they will encounter situations where stabilization is very handy.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stevea001
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
29 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Wakefield UK
     
Nov 29, 2015 08:40 |  #20

Thank you all for your contributions, they are very helpful

Looks like I am going back to the drawing board and assess what my main priorities are before purchasing a new lens

One again, thanks for all your comments

Steve




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 617
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Nov 29, 2015 13:42 |  #21

JeffreyG wrote in post #17800229 (external link)
Yeah, and I'm loving the sharpness of my 70-200 IS II. I guess I'm OK leaving the design of the lens up to Canon and just evaluating based on performance. Instead of worrying about whether an IS element set degrades the theoretical maximum sharpness potential of a lens design I just look at the performance of the 70-200/2.8 IS II, the 100-400 IS II and the 70-300L IS (not to mention the 300/2.8 IS II, 400/2.8 IS II, 500/4 IS II, 600/4 IS II) and I don't see the problem.

And that's what I do. I'll admit I have not noticed any AF tracking problems with IS on, but I do tend to turn it off anyway when I'm shooting subjects that are moving fast.

Also, I'm kind of surprised you don't find it useful for wildlife (thinking of critters other than birds). So much of that photography is in low light, long distances and relatively slow moving subjects.

To sum up, I don't see any downsides to IS. Canon offers several stunning lenses that have IS as a mentioned above. In fact, Canon's highest resolving lenses all include IS. I was kind of curious about your statement that you would actively avoid IS. When you don't need the IS, you can turn it off. But if the lens lacks IS, you can't turn it on when you do need it.

There are a few specialists (full-time sports photography?) who might literally never make use of IS. But I think most people are generalists enough that they will encounter situations where stabilization is very handy.

Interested in your thoughts.
What I have found id that I need higher shutter speeds than those at which IS is effective - even a seemingly still small bird is almost constantly twitching! When IS was introduced (back in film days) it was an absolute godsend, but with modern cameras like the 6D, 5D3 and 1DX I feel there is far less use for it - none in my case. If the light is so poor that I need to drop below 1/500 sec (where IS is a benefit) then I rarely want to keep the shot anyway, especially as it does nothing for subject movement. Now if I were a wedding photographer using a 70-200 or similar indoors then the situation may well be very different!
Having used a few of the Canon Mk2 SuperTeles I agree they are simply superb but could they have been even better without it?
You see no downside to IS and I see no upside to it!
We are all different and have different uses/requirements and manufacturers cannot serve all of us so we must just use the best we can. If you do ever shoot sports/wildlife try it without IS, you never know you might like it. If this is not what you do and you frequently shoot slow/static subjects in poor lighting conditions then I can see why you prefer to use IS - probably because that is exactly what it is designed for!
Anyway we are all different, with varying needs - all the best.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 617
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Nov 29, 2015 13:51 |  #22

stevea001 wrote in post #17800257 (external link)
Thank you all for your contributions, they are very helpful

Looks like I am going back to the drawing board and assess what my main priorities are before purchasing a new lens

One again, thanks for all your comments

Steve

Don't get hung up on my and JeffreyG's discussion about IS. The right lens for you either has IS or doesn't have it and we have to live with what is available.
Going back to your original query. I would have thought that a 70-200 F2.8 is a bit on the short side for wildlife. It all depends on your subjects, for example it may be the right tool for Deer at 25 yards but would be useless for a Kingfisher at 25 feet! Perhaps you could let us know what subjects you are after and then we may be able to offer better suggestions.
However you are quite right, you are looking at a large purchase, so taking your time and making certain you make the right decision is the most important thing.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Nov 29, 2015 15:28 |  #23

johnf3f wrote in post #17800619 (external link)
Interested in your thoughts.
What I have found id that I need higher shutter speeds than those at which IS is effective - even a seemingly still small bird is almost constantly twitching! When IS was introduced (back in film days) it was an absolute godsend, but with modern cameras like the 6D, 5D3 and 1DX I feel there is far less use for it - none in my case. If the light is so poor that I need to drop below 1/500 sec (where IS is a benefit) then I rarely want to keep the shot anyway, especially as it does nothing for subject movement. Now if I were a wedding photographer using a 70-200 or similar indoors then the situation may well be very different!
Having used a few of the Canon Mk2 SuperTeles I agree they are simply superb but could they have been even better without it?
You see no downside to IS and I see no upside to it!
We are all different and have different uses/requirements and manufacturers cannot serve all of us so we must just use the best we can. If you do ever shoot sports/wildlife try it without IS, you never know you might like it. If this is not what you do and you frequently shoot slow/static subjects in poor lighting conditions then I can see why you prefer to use IS - probably because that is exactly what it is designed for!
Anyway we are all different, with varying needs - all the best.

Even if your shutter speeds are too fast for IS to make a difference, it still stabilizes the viewfinder, which will help your shooting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,498 posts
Gallery: 156 photos
Likes: 6047
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by CyberDyneSystems. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 29, 2015 16:18 |  #24

stevea001 wrote in post #17799062 (external link)
Hi everyone

I have recently upgraded to a Canon 5d Mkiii

I am now looking to add a selection of new lenses

I am looking at buying a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens and am trying to justify the extra cost of getting the IS version of this lens.

Is the Image Stabilization worth the extra cost?

I want to use it for wildlife photography, but am hoping to take up wedding photography in the near future.

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Steve


Wildlife and wedding photography IMHO both would benefit from IS.

That said, 200mm is short for wildlife. However, most lenses great for wildlife (ie: much longer) are not so great for Weddings, so it's hard to sit here and tell you to get a 100-400mm which would be a dubious choice for weddings.

I see you are not doing weddings yet, so perhaps the recommendations for the similarly priced 100-400mm MkII should be seriously considered.

Just a reminder of where IS helps. It will not help to stop subject motion. It won't be much of a boon for those times when there is enough light to get high shutter speeds.

IS helps a LOT in difficult lighting,, when your shutter speeds are compromised.

As a nature photographer, i can tell you;

  • - I have come across plenty of situations (The majority in fact!) where I did not have the perfect lighting for the fastest shutter speeds.

  • - not all wildlife photography is action oriented. It is not sports.

  • - Many of the BEST lighting for images will be low light where a longer shutter and thus a tripod or IS will benefit you. (ask any Landscape photographer what they think of fast shutter speeds in bright light)


Shooting weddings often in dark venues often without flash is another place IS will help you get sharp images.

GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,016 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 2151
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Nov 29, 2015 16:40 |  #25

you could go for a third party 70-200mm f2.8, or the MK I version, and a MK I 100-400L for close to the price of the 100-400LII


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 617
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Nov 29, 2015 17:08 |  #26

vengence wrote in post #17800743 (external link)
Even if your shutter speeds are too fast for IS to make a difference, it still stabilizes the viewfinder, which will help your shooting.

Very true, unfortunately whilst the viewfinder is more stable the AF is not. When hand holding my 300 F2.8 L IS or 800 F5.6 L IS (or previous 300 F4 L IS and 600 F4 L IS) lenses I can have a nice stable image in the viewfinder but few (sometimes no) keepers or I can have a very unstable image in the viewfinder and lots of keepers. I prefer the latter but that's just me. I didn't have this problem with my first Big White (400 F2.8 L) as it had no IS.
I have been playing around with SuperTeles for nearly 9 years and have learned the hard way that IS has cost me a lot of images, if you find otherwise then that's fine go for it but personally I would prefer not to have IS.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,059 posts
Likes: 181
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Nov 30, 2015 10:37 |  #27

[QUOTE=vengence;178007​43]Even if your shutter speeds are too fast for IS to make a difference, it still stabilizes the viewfinder, which will help your shooting.[/QUOTE
Shooting a wedding all day and not taking in enough water for obvious reasons, the yips start to set in. With IS off your image is jumping in the Viewfinder. Turn on the IS and it smooths out, leading to faster focusing and capturing the image.
When in doubt?
Slide
Punt
IS.


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, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, 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, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Dec 01, 2015 09:08 |  #28

"I think you will be disappointed with a 70-200 for wildlife. A 100-400 II costs about the same as a 70-200 II IS and would be much better for wildlife. Or for half the money a Tamron or Sigma 150-600. Or a used 100-400 V1."

I agree with this reply, too. If this is to be a wildlife lens 200mm isn't long enough unless you can get very close!

I also used my 100-400mm for weddings for years. It set on a tripod at the back of the church. It puts you right up close and personal without being right up close and personal.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

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

3,647 views & 1 like for this thread
Image Stabilisation
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 EJayA
939 guests, 264 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.