70-200 IS or non IS

Hi all,

Pretty certain I want to move up from my Sigma 70-200 2.8 to the canon variant. Used mainly for Motorsport pics, and the Canon seems to have the edge in sharpness and focus speed.

Is the IS version worth the extra £1k?

cheers,

Aidan

That depends? Do you shoot stationary subjects in lower lighting conditions?

FWIW, I would either keep the Sigma, or if you need the IS, go with Sigmas' version.

I would say yes for what u shoot. IS makes a big different on tele.

For motorsports I'm assuming you mean panning shots. That means you either will have stop motion or panning blur. I wouldn't worry too much about shake blur if the shutter is high enough to have stop motion. I also wouldn't worry too much about shake blur if you have panning blur already.

If you can afford it, IS is great, but for your application, assuming shooting outdoors and with a moving subject, IS is much less helpful.

IS is always "worth it" if you can afford it. The IS zooms have improved optics too.

ed

Cheers, IS preferably then for all eventualities

Anyone move from mk1 to mk11 IS and notice a difference? difference in price too there as well

For me yes. If you can afford it, yes. IMO it is better to have if/when you need it.

IS is worth every penny. Lots of pennies but well worth the investment. The 70-200 f/2.8 is tack sharp all the way around. Turning on and off the IS And comparing the two confirms.

I would definitely want IS in any long lens if possible. I use a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens because:

1. The aperture is fast enough and still allows me some discretion on selective focus
2. The lens is far lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) glass. In fact, I can carry my f/4L IS and a second camera at the weight of an f/2.8L lens alone.

My 70-200mm lens is my work horse. I use it in conjunction with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras. Since I am using it hand-held in so many different venues, the IS is critical for me.

In fact, I can use my f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than I could sffectively use an f/2.8L non-IS lens.

No matter how much I want to deny it... The IS and 2.8 make a great combo. I tried telling myself that I didn't need the 2.8 or the IS and originally bought the canon 70-200 F4 non IS, then 4 months later bought the IS version then 4 months later I sold it and got my sigma.

...will never look back.

i've had both IS and non-IS in that lens. I've read the IQ is better without IS, if it is I couldn't see it in my photos, I normally have IS off. From my experience the ones with IS are easier to sell, people seem to want it and expect it to be there - I sold one with and one without and the one with IS sold very fast.

Talley wrote in post #14372376
No matter how much I want to deny it... The IS and 2.8 make a great combo. I tried telling myself that I didn't need the 2.8 or the IS and originally bought the canon 70-200 F4 non IS, then 4 months later bought the IS version then 4 months later I sold it and got my sigma.

...will never look back.

I see a 70-200/2.8 IS II in your future come about early September...