70-200f2.8, IS or not?

Dear Board,

I'd like to buy a 70-200f2.8 but I'm wondering if IS is necessary?

I will be using the lens in a variety of situations, from walk around to indoor and outdoors sports like football, basketball, and ice hockey.

What I can't quite get my head around is the advantage of IS, particularly when shooting sports or any other time I am shooting outdoors? With the sports, like a basketball game, I figure I'd need to use 1/250 or 1/500 as a shutter speed which pretty much renders IS useless if I am thinking correctly?

With that in mind and a budget of $ 1500.00 which lens would you folks recommend from the following list, and why would you recommend it? IE -it's sharper wide open, it's lighter, it's better built, etc.

Here are my potential choices. I welcome your suggestions.

Canon 70-200f2.8L
Sigma 70-200f2.8 OS HSM
Tamron 70-200f2.8 VC

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Given your budget, I'd say find a clean used Canon 70-200 2.8 IS (version I). If you shoot handheld it's worth the extra couple/few hundred bucks over the non IS version, IMO. Also, the IS version is weather sealed where as the non IS version is not. I've had both versions and much prefer having the IS. Unless you are steady as a rock (I'm not), the IS is useful a good bit beyond the focal length/shutter speed rule.

I personally wouldn't even consider the Sigma or Tamron if you are concerned with build quality...

I have the Sigma 70-200 OS. On FF, 200mm is barely manageable without OS (IS/VC/VR?). On APSc, I don't even try 200 without OS. I can't get that steady.

Take a serious look at the Tamron 70-200 VC.

I have the IS version and the lens would frustrate me if I didn't have it. 200 on a crop with the best will n the world handheld will have you thinking your have parkinsons.

Tamron. End of story.

One benefit of IS when shooting sports is that the image in the viewfinder is stabilized to let you get focus and compose better.

Many websites said Tamron 70-200 doesn't have attractive bokeh

I had Sigma non OS with out flash or tripod it is not useful inside , shutter speed must be at least 1/200 @ 200mm
if you have 5Diii or 6D you can use your ISO
I sold mine and bought a Tamron VC today

I've had all three of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8Ls
For sports I would prefer the non IS over the MKI IS version. I felt that the IQ was a little better.
The MKII IS version is better in every way.

Is it necessary, no! Is it desirable, yes!

I have a very sharp older Tamron 70-210mm f/2.8. I would only take it when I knew I was going to need it, plus at the very least a monopod (sometimes a tripod) would go with me.

I picked up a used Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (MKI) for an excellent price (at the time). I almost always carry it when I have my camera, and I now seldom take the monopod.

First, let's talk about brand. For sports (which is what I do), Canon is the ONLY answer. Why? AF performance. AF in sports is already a challenge. The minor AF performance differences with Sigma and others that does not matter for general photography becomes a make-or-break issue for sports. Shoot with Sigma (or Tamron, I presume) and your AF hit rate will drop.

For sports, IS is of minimal (not no) value. It helps you hold steady to keep the AF point on the player. You can get camera blur at 1/250 or even 1/500 of a second. I've done it. If you want player motion to be controlled, you'll need to be at least 1/500 or 1/800 sec. At those speeds, IS becomes less valuable.

I had the 70-200 Mk II. It was too heavy and f/2.8 was too slow for indoor sports. I use primes (85 f/1.8, 135L) instead to let in more light and get the shutter speed to where it needs to be.

If I were to buy a 70-200 now I would get the non-IS version. I don't need IS and the lens is heavy enough that I won't use it much. Paying $900 for a used lens that doesn't get much use is far more attractive to me than paying $1800.

YMMV.

I agree with the 'yes' parts of this question ... if you move at all, even at higher speeds for sports, you will most often get blur ... that's if you want the unexpected shot that suddenly jumps up in front of you.

And it happens more often than you'd think -

I've been shooting with the Canon EF 100-400 IS since 1999 ... and saw an improvement in my 'soft action shots' as soon as I bought it. You won't know the difference until you try it, but unless you have very steady hands at the high-end focal lengths, you can easily miss it or blur it, especially tracking a runner. After using one all this time (you can always turn it off) I'd spend the money again ... am planning in the 70-200 2.8 IS this week, and can save quite a bit with the non-IS, but will spend it. Looks like a $1000 bucks more, but Canon has a $300 mail-in rebate. SO, it might reinforce the choice ...

Dear Board,

Thanks for your input so far. I didn't expect a clear and concise winner to emerge from my potential choices so I am not surprised that none has emerged.

If I were to buy a new lens I think I would lean towards the 70-200f2.8 L non-IS version. It has always gotten good reviews and I believe that it will perform slightly better on my 1DMK11 than any of the third party offerings. The Canon IS versions are above my $ 1500.00 budget.

With the third party lenses I would get IS with either of them and be at, or slightly below, the $ 1500.00 mark. I am not adverse to third party lenses. In addition, I'd get 3 or 6 times the warranty. That makes it tougher to decide.

To compound things I am even considering the 70-200f4 L, with and without IS. While I would like to do indoor sports photography it would only be as a hobbyist. In all honesty for outdoor use I'm sure the f4 version would be more than adequate for my needs. Outdoor sports would be during daylight hours so I may not need the f2.8?

Decisions, decisions!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Rent the Tamron 70-200 VC and try it out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I own the non IS and shoot motorsport with it and my 7d...match made, it's a flawless combo.