The value of IS with 70-200 lenses

DennisW1 wrote in post #12793977
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!!

I disagree. The photo I posted above the couple was moving towards me. I could not have shot that photo without IS as there is no way I can hand hold a 200mm lens at 1/80 sec and get a sharp image.

This is a wedding photo forum so low light is part and parcel of what we do. Moving subjects are hard enough to capture at slow shutter speeds but it can be done and IS makes the job possible.

jcolman wrote in post #12794488
I disagree. The photo I posted above the couple was moving towards me. I could not have shot that photo without IS as there is no way I can hand hold a 200mm lens at 1/80 sec and get a sharp image.

This is a wedding photo forum so low light is part and parcel of what we do. Moving subjects are hard enough to capture at slow shutter speeds but it can be done and IS makes the job possible.

X2 jcolman. IS is a dealbreaker as far as im concerned,,especially on the 70-200 f/2.8

BTW-- Awesome shot

I wouldn't buy a 70-200 F2.8 without IS. I need IS for inside dark churches, where the light is low and people are pretty much standing still.

I can hand hold the 70-200 F2.8 VR II at 1/20th and reliably get a sharp photo, sometimes 1/10th. No way can I do that without IS/VR.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #12792940
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.

Thanks, but I'm not ready to pull the trigger on anything yet. If it is still around when I am, I'll be sure to PM you.

tim wrote in post #12796663
I can hand hold the 70-200 F2.8 VR II at 1/20th and reliably get a sharp photo, sometimes 1/10th. No way can I do that without IS/VR.

Exactly. This is the value if IS.

So the general gist of what you guys/gals are saying is that IS/OS is fairly important and that it would make the Sigma a more viable option than the Canon non-IS?

dan.k78 wrote in post #12797354
So the general gist of what you guys/gals are saying is that IS/OS is fairly important and that it would make the Sigma a more viable option than the Canon non-IS?

Yes...provided it can focus accurately and reliably.

i think that sigma gets a lot of krap that it doesnt deserve. I know a couple of people that have it and get great results. But, I opted for the canon as well. I figured if im gonna spend over 1200.00 for a piece of glass,,its gonna be canon. Seriously, canon is the better choice, faster focus and i think better colors, BUT, im beting a paid customer could not tell the difference. The clients can tell if the lens is white or black

Hi,

I took this with 70-200 IS II @ 1/30, 2.8, @200. The room is dark, darker than most wedding reception and churches. It is a live performance.
This is 1 in 3 shots that is sharp. Without IS, i would have hit a 0 in 3.

I am glad to have the IS.

cheers,
Scott

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm no pro, and I don't have the Canon version, but I just got a Tamron 70-200 and I'm in love with it, but WOW does that thing shake. I feel like I'm on a boat looking through the viewfinder. So I'd say it would be nice to have some IS/VC/etc. A monopod helps, but that's not always practical.

get the sig 70-200 unless you got the extra $1k for the mkII version of the canon.

non IS canon vs sigma OS for the same price is a no brainer unless you buy canon just to say "yea its a canon"

if it was canon 70-200 IS MKI vs sigma OS i'd still rather have the new sigma than the old canon.

i'd take the mkII canon over all of em though if i could swing it.

and yes i do believe sigma gets alot of crap that it doesnt deserve. and most of the actual problems that they really did have were with primes. i honestly wonder how some of these people dont die in their sleep that say they've got 5 and 6 bad copy's of sigma in a row. thats got to be the worst luck ever and i'd be afraid to leave the house. not to mention they come with a crazy long warranty and sigma has a good track record of covering all of the problems people talk about under their warranty. i think alot of the problem is people repeating stuff they read on the net without ever having the problem themselves. thats how you get a thredad started with 1 or 2 guys with a legitimate problem and 30 other people there that have never had the problem and sometimes never owned the lens in question or even a sigma jumping on the thread running sigma into the ground.

The Outlaw wrote in post #12822502
i honestly wonder how some of these people dont die in their sleep that say they've got 5 and 6 bad copy's of sigma in a row. thats got to be the worst luck ever and i'd be afraid to leave the house.

I tried three Sigma 30 F1.4 for Canon lenses (one calibrated), and two Sigma 50 F1.4 lenses for Nikon (one calibrated). None focussed consistently accurately at all reasonable distances. I'm sticking with OEM lenses now - Nikon make awesome lenses.

When I bought my first telephoto lens I though I would save a few bucks by buying the Canon 75-300 without IS. After using the lens for a little over two weeks I sold it and bought the 55-250 with IS. BIG DIFFERENCE. Personally I will never again buy a telephoto lens without some form of image stabilization. The ability to shoot clear shots at slower shutter speeds will pay off the very first time it is needed.

NewHorizonPhoto wrote in post #12840092
When I bought my first telephoto lens I though I would save a few bucks by buying the Canon 75-300 without IS. After using the lens for a little over two weeks I sold it and bought the 55-250 with IS. BIG DIFFERENCE. Personally I will never again buy a telephoto lens without some form of image stabilization. The ability to shoot clear shots at slower shutter speeds will pay off the very first time it is needed.

55-250 F4 - F5.6 isn't a pro grade lens, even with IS it'd be too slow in many case. F2.8 lenses are far more useful.

Link spamming on your first post isn't cool either.

tim wrote in post #12840222
55-250 F4 - F5.6 isn't a pro grade lens, even with IS it'd be too slow in many case. F2.8 lenses are far more useful.

Link spamming on your first post isn't cool either.

My apologies. I do intend to attempt to contribute in these forums in a helpful way and not simply link spam. Sorry it was taken that way. Also, I made no claim that a 55-250 F 4- F 5.6 was a pro grade lens. I was simply commenting that I noticed a clear difference in the quality of image produced likely due to the addition of image stabilization. In my opinion the image stabilization is worth the added cost, pro or consumer.