IS, or non-IS, that is the question...

I did some searching here before asking this, and I THINK I have my question answered, but figured I ask anyway, so sorry if I am beating a dead horse...

I entered into the world of "L" lenses with a 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS lens today, and I wanted to make sure I shouldn't have waited for an IS lens. I am going to use it for both indoor and outdoor sports, and maybe for family stuff, but the majority for sports. I was under the impression that:

1. The more you zoom in, the better IS works for you.

2. Generally for sports, IS really doesn't affect things.

I would like to get other opinions on this, to maybe plan a future of upgrading, if this doesn't work out.

By the way, I shoot a 50D.

I hope I'm not shaking a bees nest asking this...

Thanks!!!

Ken

IS doesn't freeze action, you need a high shutter speed for that. There are a few articles around the web which claim that image stabalization is in fact detrimental to image quality if used with shutter speeds higher than 500. I've never really tested this. When I used to shoot Nikon I rarely shot sports. When I did I usually left IS off. That being said, IS is useful at times, but not always necessary.

Thanks for the reply...

That's another thing I found here in the forums but forgot to mention, the fact that IS isn't needed at high shutter speeds, which is what I will be mostly doing. I will probably have it on a monopod as well, so I would hope that would minimize the need for IS somewhat.

Still learning, so thanks for all the help...!


Ken

IS has two position, and one position for sport with lower shutter speed, it helps to do panning (vertical stabilization)....
Just 2 samples (FullHD size by clicking on pictures)

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …et/1171910393_j​w8Kg-O.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …3/650461022_uVH​Wm-O-1.jpg

Wow... nice shots!!!

I will try it for a while.. If it doesn't work out, I can always sell this one and trade up. Wouldn't be able to afford the Mk II, but could get the Mk I.

I think it's going to work out fine. I had a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 without "OS" and took these of the Boston Marathon:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kenjancef

They are unprocessed, so they could look better, but took these freehand without IS. I don't think they came out too bad.

Love the replies... my mind is like a sponge... Want to soask this all in.

Thanks again!!


Ken

I'm in my 60's and can't hold a camera as stable as I could 10 years ago. (Yes, I'm in good shape from running, weights, etc, but age takes its toll anyway.) Image stabilization is a real boon for me, and I use it all the time, as I am usually shooting hand-held. Really high shutter speeds should generally compensate for lack of IS, however.