Steady hands with the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II

I know you were joking, just some others who didn't seem to notice that you were.....
awwww cute doggy!!!

Don't know if I actually need (want is a whole other issue :lol this lens if I need to go longer it would be to the 300-400 range

jdizzle wrote in post #9872362
f/5, 105mm, ISO 400, SS 1/30.

What's this? it must be those old cameras with only 12mp.

JK. totally jealous of your d3 - thinking of switching soon. But the new 70-200 II prevents me from doing so. If canon produces a 24-70 IS or a Mark II that's super sharp, I'm sure i will stay.

KCY wrote in post #9872768
I know you were joking, just some others who didn't seem to notice that you were.....
awwww cute doggy!!!

Don't know if I actually need (want is a whole other issue :lol this lens if I need to go longer it would be to the 300-400 range

Thanks KCY. You should get it anyway.

Marloon wrote in post #9873042
What's this? it must be those old cameras with only 12mp.

JK. totally jealous of your d3 - thinking of switching soon. But the new 70-200 II prevents me from doing so. If canon produces a 24-70 IS or a Mark II that's super sharp, I'm sure i will stay.

I'm with you on that buddy. Canon really needs to update the 24-70.

Welcome to the club Julian

Congrats on the new lens, although I sure wish you would have not posted these pics. Now I want this one . Guess ill have to sell the Mk I first.

i got mine a couple of days ago,my first shot was @1/20th, my second was at a calender to look for CA's and check sharpness at 200mm 2.8 no more tests were needed this lens outperforms my old version and was well worth upgrading. for those of you who want 2.8 this version will not dissapoint.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but here is the first photo I shot with this lens the day I got it:

1/20, f/2.8, ISO 400 @ 70mm IS

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Great samples of the IS. I recently got this lens, too. I was able to get to 1/15 with no problems. I experimented a bit with slower shutter speeds (at 200mm) but was unable to reliably go much lower than 1/15 or 1/10. When I really made a point of leaning up against a door frame and letting the IS settle for 2-3 seconds, breath slowly, etc., I was ALMOST able to get 1/8 to work.

Have you had any luck with slower shutter speeds?

Just a simple question . I already know the importance of f/2.8 which most probably don't use it often , and i know the importance of low ISO even tho i don't like using any below ISO 200 . But heres' my question . Why is it so important lately to get the slowest SS possible for inside shots ?? Doesn't make sense to me . To me ISO 100 and sometimes ISO 200 is too soft to me . However i do use both outside on bright days to keep down burnout . But if your watching your Histogram and trying to keep in good shape there most times you need at least 200 ISO for good color and IQ . Sometimes i even have to go with slightly higher ISO for these adjustments . So why the slowest SS important ??

that is quite steady for 1/15th. Needless to say, with a static subject, tripods and remote shutters are the way to go. These are positive results, nonetheless. I'm more interested in this lens because of its increased IQ. Have you gone to 'the digital picture' and compared the ISO crops between this lens and the 200 F2? At 200mm, the results are jaw dropping. This, from a zoom at half the price! I will no doubt be selling my 70-200 when I come with a strategy as to which market to place it on. I'd obviously want top dollar in light of the cost of the mark II.

Celestron wrote in post #9876195
Just a simple question . I already know the importance of f/2.8 which most probably don't use it often , and i know the importance of low ISO even tho i don't like using any below ISO 200 . But heres' my question . Why is it so important lately to get the slowest SS possible for inside shots ?? Doesn't make sense to me . To me ISO 100 and sometimes ISO 200 is too soft to me . However i do use both outside on bright days to keep down burnout . But if your watching your Histogram and trying to keep in good shape there most times you need at least 200 ISO for good color and IQ . Sometimes i even have to go with slightly higher ISO for these adjustments . So why the slowest SS important ??

The mkII here, does more than just lower the slowest possible shutter speed (which is handy for low-light detail shots or getting motion blur in a subject without blurring all the motionless items in a scene)...but it also stablizes a lot faster than the mkI version. This also makes for a cleaner image at more "reasonable" shutter speeds like 1/100 - 1/200. It just helps keep everything nice and sharp. Sometimes, shakiness is apparent at these shutter speeds, too.

KAS wrote in post #9876261
The mkII here, does more than just lower the slowest possible shutter speed (which is handy for low-light detail shots or getting motion blur in a subject without blurring all the motionless items in a scene)...but it also stablizes a lot faster than the mkI version. This also makes for a cleaner image at more "reasonable" shutter speeds like 1/100 - 1/200. It just helps keep everything nice and sharp. Sometimes, shakiness is apparent at these shutter speeds, too.

Ok , i see your point . Guess it's just that i don't shoot for the blurr reason cause i don't need blurr at the moment for my images . Thanks tho !

Celestron wrote in post #9876195
Just a simple question . I already know the importance of f/2.8 which most probably don't use it often , and i know the importance of low ISO even tho i don't like using any below ISO 200 . But heres' my question . Why is it so important lately to get the slowest SS possible for inside shots ?? Doesn't make sense to me . To me ISO 100 and sometimes ISO 200 is too soft to me . However i do use both outside on bright days to keep down burnout . But if your watching your Histogram and trying to keep in good shape there most times you need at least 200 ISO for good color and IQ . Sometimes i even have to go with slightly higher ISO for these adjustments . So why the slowest SS important ??

Anything above ISO 200 shows noise on my 50D, so I try and shoot everything at ISO 100, I've never noticed it to be soft.

While I admit people tend to be focusing on taking pictures using the slowest possible shutter speed, I think people are just trying to show how much better the IS is on this version versus the mark I. It's also handy to know that if your subject can stand still, this can be used at very slow shutter speeds and still achieve sharp images.

geoff5093 wrote in post #9876396
Anything above ISO 200 shows noise on my 50D, so I try and shoot everything at ISO 100, I've never noticed it to be soft.

Anything over ISO200 noisy? wow! are you sure dude? I don't experience that at all. Please explain or post pics. Perhaps we should start a new thread so we dont hijack this one. Sorry for Hijacking.