Why I want a 1DIII

manutd101 wrote in post #6088735
Not really, at least on a 70-200. Because if your shutter speed is below 1/500, camera shake won't be your main problem. Subject montion will. The only time IS comes in really handy is in really bad light, say in a locker room, for after the game portraits or detail images.

Fair enough, thanks. That'd save me $700.

AdamLewis wrote in post #6088777
Youre gaining 1 stop of ISO by going to a MkIII. Thats the same gain youll see by going to f/2.8 from f/4 on the camera you have now.

Good point!

I didn't get time yesterday but today I intend to get the 70-200 2.8L IS version after selling on my nonIS version.

(I did buy my non IS second hand. It's been good and I won't have lost any cash on the deal even after using it for 2 years)

I'm going for IS because there's been plenty of times when IS could have helped in other circumstances (away from sports). e.g. school events and halls where the action is slower but the light even poorer!!

My camera is a 30D and at ISO1600, the colours are a bit muted, even when I shoot in RAW. I hope with the IS, I might be able to get nonaction shots at lower ISO.

AdamC wrote in post #6103162
Fair enough, thanks. That'd save me $700.

Always a good thing

flickserve wrote in post #6103305
there's been plenty of times when IS could have helped in other circumstances (away from sports). e.g. school events and halls where the action is slower but the light even poorer!!

Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.

AdamC wrote in post #6103822
Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.

Ive sat on the fence for a long time about the IS-vs-Non with this lens for a long time. I got the IS version a couple years ago before I really did sports. Now that I do sports, its a feature I never "need". That being said, there are times I find myself using the IS for event coverage and sometimes there are times I use it just to keep the viewfinder steady.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=103 will show that the Non-IS version has marginally better center sharpness while the IS version seems a little bit better from corner to corner. That doesnt mean it doesnt take sharp pictures though


70-200 f/2.8 IS + 5D. Conversion from RAW through DPP with 0 sharpening and then USM in Photoshop. Now, this picture may be cheating a little because the files that come out of the 5D are literally the sharpest things Ive ever seen in my life (and thats from a 20D, 30D, 40D, and 1D MkIII). Still...It proves a point

AdamLewis wrote in post #6104859
the Non-IS version has marginally better center sharpness while the IS version seems a little bit better from corner to corner.

Wow, that's really surprising. I assumed it was the exact same lens optically, only with the extra IS circuitry either present or not. Great photo!

As an aside, I noticed you're a sportsshooter member - is it hard to get into? Is it worth it?

Football at high iso with a mkIII

I go to really dark grounds.. heres some from last night (13th aug) ISO 6400 and shutter at 1/320 all f2.8 ... can you imagine how dark it is for those settings These where taken at various points around the ground.

Taken in JPG and only processing is my faveroute PS2s "dust/scratches" and resize etc. no noise reduction.


#1

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

AdamC wrote in post #6103822
Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.

It's come at a big premium for me as well. (approx 1000AUD ) I've agonised over the decision for 2 years and just bought the lens.