The value of IS with 70-200 lenses

I'm sure there is a topic about this somewhere, but my search skills are apparently lacking because I can't find anything. I'm starting to think about upgrading to a tele-zoom that can remain at f/2.8 throughout the range and I'm debating between the Sigma (OS version) and the Canon (Non-IS). They are both around the same cost, so I'm curious to see what opinions are out there regarding these two. I'd love the IS II, but that just isn't realistic right now. So, is the Canon focus speed, color rendition, build quaity, etc... worth sacrificing the IS for? Thanks in advance.

Funny you bring this up now dan. I am actually thinking about selling my 70-200mm non-is to get the IS markII version. It has worked me extremely well, but I just did a gig that can pay the difference for the mark II and thought I might as well jump while I have the chance.

To answer your question, I have done great with it. I had the Tamron 70-200 for about a month, but the focus wasnt fast, accurate, or quiet enough so I went with the Canon.

This is a never-ending debate. Personally, I like IS on any lens; but especially on anything over 100mm. A lot of it depends on what you're shooting, and how you're shooting it, though.

If your shooting style/situation lets you keep you your shutter above about 1/320 (with a 200mm) then you likely won't see any benefit from IS. If, however, you're shooting indoors/low light and shutter speeds are lower than that, I would suggest going the IS route.

Also, remember that IS helps eliminate blur from camera shake; but does absolutely NOTHING for subject movement.

Remember, aside from being expensive, the 70-200 2.8 IS weighs a ton.

The 100L for under $1,000 is 160mm on a crop sensor and is 2.8, has IS and is light and small by comparison. I personally find my 100 or even my 85 1.8 on my crop sensor camera is enough for me.

If I ever have a wedding where I'm forced to shoot it from the back of a huge church (everyone's argument for buying the 70-200 2.8 IS) I'll rent one. But I really can't justify the expense to own it, and even if someone gave it to me I wouldn't want to lug it around that often.

I would like to own the F/4 IS version as it's cheaper and lighter, but it wouldn't help much for indoor weddings and receptions.

Also the 135L for under 1k would be effective 200mm and F/2 on your 7D.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12792704
The 100L for under $1,000 is 160mm on a crop sensor and is 2.8, has IS and is light and small by comparison. I personally find my 100 or even my 85 1.8 on my crop sensor camera is enough for me.

And has macro.

There is no way I could have captured this shot without IS. 1/80 sec @ 200mm. That is the value of IS for me.

PM me if you are interested in getting the lens Dan and we can talk.

Is IS important? Probably, that is why I am buying it. Is it double the price, yes.

Yup. You will see the benefit when you are using shutter speeds slower than 1/200, say 1/60 to 1/120 for instance, which for me would be typical speeds inside churches, which is fast enough to stop slow movement. With the 3 or 4 stop IS, you can easily hand hold the lens at 1/120 & 200mm.

100L Macro is good too...but the lower the light, the more it struggles with fast focusing.

IS = steady viewfinder and slower shutter speeds. I've been able to get crisps photos at 1/25 sec at 200mm. If you're paid, IS is worth it. Hobby? Probably not.

nicksan wrote in post #12793323
100L Macro is good too...but the lower the light, the more it struggles with fast focusing.

Yeah, i love the 100L but fast focusing in low light is not it's forte
especially with moving objects.

it does obviously make a better macro lens than any of the 70-200L's though

jcolman wrote in post #12792824
There is no way I could have captured this shot without IS. 1/80 sec @ 200mm. That is the value of IS for me.

Off topic, I know, but I still had to say it. Given where you must've been standing to shoot this with a 70-200, that's got to be the longest church aisle in the world.

An excellent shot.

Peacefield wrote in post #12793583
Off topic, I know, but I still had to say it. Given where you must've been standing to shoot this with a 70-200, that's got to be the longest church aisle in the world.

An excellent shot.

Thanks! Yes, it was quite long. This shot will give you an idea of how big the church is.

jcolman wrote in post #12793695
Thanks! Yes, it was quite long. This shot will give you an idea of how big the church is.

Holy crap! I definitely would've rented the 70-200 2.8 IS for that church. Church weddings seem rare in these parts (maybe just for my client base), and even when they're not I've never seen a church that big. Anyway, nice shot.

jcolman wrote in post #12792824
There is no way I could have captured this shot without IS. 1/80 sec @ 200mm. That is the value of IS for me.

Very nice shot!

Snydremark wrote in post #12792572
If your shooting style/situation lets you keep you your shutter above about 1/320 (with a 200mm) then you likely won't see any benefit from IS. If, however, you're shooting indoors/low light and shutter speeds are lower than that, I would suggest going the IS route.

Also, remember that IS helps eliminate blur from camera shake; but does absolutely NOTHING for subject movement.

Amen to that! One "little" detail that many seem to forget! One comment to add to the "shooting indoor/low light, etc." situation is that this will also depend on what you're shooting. If its moving then IS isn't going to be of any value.

I own the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 and love it. It's considerably lighter and easier to fit into my shooting bag than the IS version would be. My main subects for that lens are motorsports events, so the IS would be of no value there. Price is also a consideration, that IS II model is really expensive!!