IS or 2.8

DDCSD wrote in post #8637456
Have you ever used the 70-200 f/2.8? Yeah, its plenty heavy, but it hardly needs tripod (or even a monopod, for that matter). Especially for sports.

+1 on that.

sethultimate wrote in post #8637364
snob what?

I am a photographer, don't you think that I know the difference between a 2.8 lens and f/4?

what is this?

of course the 2.8 is better, of course

and that's out of the question

now get this picture (literally):
I need you to cover a soccer game, today: it starts at 7:30PM and will end at 9PM . from 800/3.5 to 3200/2.8 and from 1/1000 to 1/400 minimum
what do you do? bring the F4? and what about if you need a 1.4x or you don't want to bring the 300 or 400?
it's not about the ability to take a shot once in a while, it's about shooting or pack the lens and cameras and go home (or don't even go there in the first place because you don't have the lens for the task).

A) I showed you EVIDENCE, not HYPOTHETICALS of a shoot with WORSE conditions than your Soccer Match. And showed you shutter speeds FASTER than your requirement. And guess what? I used the f/4L.

B) If you throw the 1.4x or 2x into the mix its a TOTALLY different ballgame, because of the light loss. If you want to hawk that its f/2.8 or go home, you can't bring the 1.4x into the mix, because your f/2.8 is now a f/4.

So pack in your hypothetical textbook cases and your f/2.8-snobbishness and go home.

F4 is too slow for indoor sports (Unless you want to use ISO 12000ish).
F2.8 Is heavy.

The first few points in the thread were actually quite productive,
you should use the extra money for some more equipment,

Like a flash or a tripod.

I owned the non IS 2.8 before I got the 2.8 IS and did not really like it for most things. It is very hard to get sharp shots when shooting below 1/200th of a second hand held.

The f4 IS will let you shoot at slower shutter speeds if the scene calls for it.

nureality wrote in post #8638112
A) I showed you EVIDENCE, not HYPOTHETICALS of a shoot with WORSE conditions than your Soccer Match. And showed you shutter speeds FASTER than your requirement. And guess what? I used the f/4L.

B) If you throw the 1.4x or 2x into the mix its a TOTALLY different ballgame, because of the light loss. If you want to hawk that its f/2.8 or go home, you can't bring the 1.4x into the mix, because your f/2.8 is now a f/4.

So pack in your hypothetical textbook cases and your f/2.8-snobbishness and go home.

Actually, you've shown us nothing.

Here is where your link leads:

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

20DNewbie wrote in post #8636076
While it's a general rule it's most definitely not an absolute. I've gone down to 1/50 @200mm(non-IS) while shooting a MMA fight that's decent enough for the web. I just try to wait for the moment of the strike to minimize the blur at that speed.

It's about shake from handholding, not motion blur. If you are shooting 1/50sec on a 200mm on a 1.6cf, you've got to be on a monopod at least.

DDCSD wrote in post #8637456
Have you ever used the 70-200 f/2.8? Yeah, its plenty heavy, but it hardly needs tripod (or even a monopod, for that matter). Especially for sports.

Sorry I should clarify- tripod needed in low light for shutter speeds lower then 1/200 (give or take), whereas an IS version of a 70-200 can be handheld down to 1/60 or even lower. It is heavy but yes the average person should not have issues holding it by hand.

both.. .LOL. can't live without them...

20DNewbie wrote in post #8636076
While it's a general rule it's most definitely not an absolute. I've gone down to 1/50 @200mm(non-IS) while shooting a MMA fight that's decent enough for the web. I just try to wait for the moment of the strike to minimize the blur at that speed.

You bring up another point. IS is great for purposefully shooting motion blur. A boxer throwing a punch were the face and body are relatively still even at 1/50sec, but the hand/arm are moving fast enough to get good blur. That's a great shot, but needs IS, or a monopod.

Here's kind'a what I mean - shot handheld at 1/8sec, 106mm on a 1.6 cf with the 70-200mm f/4L IS:

DDCSD wrote in post #8638361
Actually, you've shown us nothing.

Here is where your link leads:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Regardless of what is in your Flickr page, it likely doesn't prove much. The only thing that it likely does prove is that the f/4L is a great lens when you have enough light to work with.

http://www.flickr.com …04/sets/7215761​8689695556

DDCSD wrote in post #8637456
Have you ever used the 70-200 f/2.8? Yeah, its plenty heavy, but it hardly needs tripod (or even a monopod, for that matter). Especially for sports.

I've never used one but, purely anecdotal, when I went to the Fashion Week in town the one thing I noticed was that I was the only one with an f4 and I was the only one that wasn't using a monopod or a tripod. I kid you not, I was the only one.

The tripods were the paid pros. All of them, every one had their camera on a tripod in the "pit" at the end of the stage and not all were using 70-200's. There were 2 with 24-70's and they were also on tripods. They would pack their rig and move to the next stage and wait for that show to start. There were multiple catwalks.

The one thing I noticed is that there is no time to rest. You are pretty much constantly shooting at these events, with the camera at eye level with very short opportunities to lower the camera to chimp, if necessary.

Rubberhead wrote in post #8638649
You bring up another point. IS is great for purposefully shooting motion blur. A boxer throwing a punch were the face and body are relatively still even at 1/50sec, but the hand/arm are moving fast enough to get good blur. That's a great shot, but needs IS, or a monopod.

Here's kind'a what I mean - shot handheld at 1/8sec, 106mm on a 1.6 cf with the 70-200mm f/4L IS:

That's a great shot! Gotta remember to try that next time...

nureality wrote in post #8639069
http://www.flickr.com …04/sets/7215761​8689695556

Most of us don't shoot internationally televised events. You had a ton of light to work with there, for a night event.

bohdank wrote in post #8639214
I've never used one but, purely anecdotal, when I went to the Fashion Week in town the one thing I noticed was that I was the only one with an f4 and I was the only one that wasn't using a monopod or a tripod. I kid you not, I was the only one.

The tripods were the paid pros. All of them, every one had their camera on a tripod in the "pit" at the end of the stage and not all were using 70-200's. There were 2 with 24-70's and they were also on tripods. They would pack their rig and move to the next stage and wait for that show to start. There were multiple catwalks.

The one thing I noticed is that there is no time to rest. You are pretty much constantly shooting at these events, with the camera at eye level with very short opportunities to lower the camera to chimp, if necessary.

There's a good chance that they had their cameras/lenses on a tripod because every shot was going to basically be the same. I'm guessing the models stop and turn at the same place on the runway every time. They just need to set the camera up, pre-focus and trip the shutter when the model hits their mark.

It makes sense for something like that, where the subject will always be in the same place and you're only going to get one type of shot anyways. I highly doubt it was because the lenses were too heavy to hold or to eliminate camera shake. Most of them use flashes for that stuff anyways, don't they?

2.8 for stopping action.
IS for not.

Or, I would just save up for the 2.8 IS to be able to stop action and shoot slow moving objects in caves.

nureality wrote in post #8638112
A) I showed you EVIDENCE, not HYPOTHETICALS of a shoot with WORSE conditions than your Soccer Match. And showed you shutter speeds FASTER than your requirement. And guess what? I used the f/4L.

not really.
look:
2.8 is better than 4. ya know? you don't? well now you do.

I'm not interested in your snaps.

that's how it is.

keep screaming but it won't change the fact that in order to get my attention you should produce much more than that.

2.8 is better than 4. also because of that
period

LOL

you are now becoming insolent and also annoying.

gonna ask you to step back please.If you don't want to know about lenses then fine, but I can't allow you to get all excited and insolent with me. I don't like it. And if I don't like it then we have a problem here.