Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Oct 2010 (Monday) 23:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200mm non-is or 70-200mm IS- (Sharpness for Sports)

 
jbhswim
Senior Member
Avatar
594 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif.
     
Oct 11, 2010 23:19 |  #1

Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance.. :)

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...


1D Mark ii, Rebel XS,17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4mk, 70-200mm f/4L
Flickr (external link)

Rebel XS / 1000d users, lets join forces.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jardiniboy
Senior Member
508 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Waipahu, Hawaii
     
Oct 11, 2010 23:36 |  #2

Go with the Non-IS. Your shutter speed is going to be high so you're not going to utilize the IS feature.

For sharpness, my vote would go towards the Non-IS because the 1 less glass in the lens.


Gear List Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Oct 12, 2010 00:40 |  #3

jbhswim wrote in post #11079450 (external link)
Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance.. :)

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...

1. I wouldn't go too crazy over the finest levels of sharpness since sports has so much fast movement, no carefully bracing shots, often poor lighting, etc.

2. The 2.8 non-IS is sharper, certainly anywhere near the center on FF and probably overall on APS-C and maybe even APS-H (some claim the IS becomes sharper near the edges on FF, not sure), and has less longitudinal CA/PF than the 2.8 IS MkI (Mk II is surely better though). I have heard some claims the IS has slightly faster focusing, not sure, didn't get to really test that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZAlphaDog
Goldmember
Avatar
1,750 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Southwest
     
Oct 12, 2010 01:22 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #4

The price difference between the two is like $400 or $500 dollars right?

You could rent one of each for a weekend (at the same time) and do your very own testing and that way it won't matter what anyone's opinion on some silly internet forum says you will know for sure.


DOUG JAMES | PHOTO PRODUCTIONS (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raksphoto
Senior Member
506 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 94
Joined Jun 2010
Location: California
     
Oct 12, 2010 01:49 |  #5

jbhswim wrote in post #11079450 (external link)
Hey guys, just wanted to check in and see what the general consensus is..

I'm a Sports Shooter, and need to grab some faster glass for the upcoming low-light winter months. Like many, I'd love to save some $$ and go with the non-is, but don't want to sacrifice any sharpness or IQ.

Are they in the same league even though the non-is is an older lens?

Thanks in advance.. :)

BTW: The Mark II is way out of reach...

I went through this similar scenario for a different form of fast-moving action, which is belly dancers. I decided against IS, because it does not help you stop action. It can help keep the viewfinder display a less jumbly as you're panning around to capture the action, but it's otherwise completely useless for stopping action. Good hand-holding (or a monopod, perhaps) can do wonders though.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is pretty tough, but it's not indestructible. Mine lasted about 5 years before the IS system got very wonky, and then this affected the regular AF. After examining several years of EXIF data for belly dance festival events on lighted stages, even though some gigs were low-light, f/2.8 was not the most often used aperture -- it was more like f/3.5 quite a lot. As a result, for this environment, the 70-200mm f/4L USM (the non-IS f/4 ...) became my workhorse lens -- and it was very favorably priced. If you're doing fast action outdoors, it would seem like you have much more light available than the dim theatrical lighting. I generally work Tv = 1/160 in this environment. Of possible importance, it should be noted that the f/4L is significantly lighter then the f/2.8L. It has made a tremendous difference for hand-holding, particularly for multi-hour gigs. Just picking up my (though br0ken) f/2.8L freaked me out the other day ... it's quite heavy.

Good luck whatever you decide, and hope you grab some great action shots!


2x 7D Mark II | 70D | 5DSr
EF-S 10-18mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM |
EF-S 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM | EF 70-200mm f/4L |
EF 135mm f/2L | EF 100mm f/2 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.2L | EF 35mm f/1.4L EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM MACRO

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
micromoose
Member
80 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Warwickshire, UK
     
Oct 12, 2010 05:50 as a reply to  @ raksphoto's post |  #6

Until recently I had a 70-200 f4L non-IS which I only changed for a 100-400 as I wanted the extra focal length. The 70-200 was a great lens with (IMO) great sharpness. Over 5-6 years I never had any problems with the lens and never wished for IS.

Samples here: https://photography-on-the.net …893272&highligh​t=portugal all shots taken with the 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarrenr
Goldmember
Avatar
1,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Fairland, Indiana
     
Oct 12, 2010 06:04 |  #7

As stated above the IS is not necessary for high shutter speeds, so don't be afraid to go without it. ;-)a Another option is look at the sigma 70-200 2.8. If you pixel peek you will be able to detect a small amount of additional sharpness with the L lens, but that's the only time. I recently switched to the new OS sigma from the I version of the L and I can not tell the difference in image quality. As it's been said here on POTN, the 70-200 2.8 is really just a luxury lens. I think it would be worth your while to rent two or three lens and see which one works best for you in your budget.


D. Warren Robison
"All guys feel the need to compensate. Most compensate with sports cars. I compensate with a 400mm 2.8"
Flickr (external link) - Home Page (external link) - MaxPreps Gallery - (external link)Razzi (external link)
Equipment List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lensmen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,563 posts
Joined Oct 2004
     
Oct 12, 2010 06:36 as a reply to  @ AZAlphaDog's post |  #8

I will pay a bit more for that IS function.

Our hands can get tired and not be very steady, due to tiredness or just age or whatever factor.


Jimmy
Just my 2 frame's worth :D:D:D
My Gear List
500px album (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mookalafalas
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,112 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 461
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southern Taiwan
     
Oct 12, 2010 06:44 |  #9

lensmen wrote in post #11081158 (external link)
I will pay a bit more for that IS function.

Our hands can get tired and not be very steady, due to tiredness or just age or whatever factor.

Well, if it was a bit more I'd agree with you, but in this case it's about double! I bought the Non-IS cuz I couldn't bear to pay $600 for $100 technology. I'm very happy with my decision and have no buyer's remorse, but almost everyone says that no matter what lens they buy if it's over 3 or 400 bucks:)


Call me Al Gear Flickr (external link)
You don’t have to have a great lens to take great pictures—but it sure helps. –Ben Long

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,092 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Oct 12, 2010 06:45 |  #10

I went from f4 non-IS to the 2.8 IS I after only a year. I couldn't live without the IS when I take so many soccer and indoor sports images a month. I also shoot concerts, the IS really helps. If you can afford it, why not get the extra help?


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, M100, M50, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brokenbones67
Member
64 posts
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 12, 2010 10:27 |  #11

My limited experience with the 2.8 IS MK I was it was soft beyond 155ish. I shoot a lot of U13/U14 outdoor soccer. I went for the 70-200 IS MKII and couldn't be happier. The MK II is crisp @ 2.8 200mm. Like everyone says, IS doesn't help with action. I bought it since I tend to shake a bit and the low light/slow shutter speed indoor shots at 1/25 are easy to get with the IS MKII. I need to look at a few other pics, but I think I have a few even slower that turned out well.

Also - like many have said before, 200mm is a bit short for soccer. For now it's fine with me. I wait for the action and still zoom a lot with my feet.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBrick3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,094 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: College Park, Md.
     
Oct 12, 2010 10:30 as a reply to  @ brokenbones67's post |  #12

For indoor sports, something like the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 would be more useful. 85's are cheap and they are good.


1D III 5D II 5D | 580 EX II x 2
17-40L | 35L | 100L | 70-200 II | 17-35 f/2.8-f/4
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,609 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 501
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 12, 2010 10:39 |  #13

Any of the 70-200's will be sharp, If your looking to save some money I would suggest the 2.8 non IS and pick up a small mono pod when you need more stability. In most cases your going to have a pretty fast shutter that will negate the IS anyway. Of course its better to have IS but your paying a premium to get it.

A fast prime is the best if you really want pixel peeping sharpness but all of the lenses mentioned in this thread are sharp.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Oct 12, 2010 13:49 |  #14

dwarrenr wrote in post #11081087 (external link)
As stated above the IS is not necessary for high shutter speeds, so don't be afraid to go without it. ;-)a Another option is look at the sigma 70-200 2.8. If you pixel peek you will be able to detect a small amount of additional sharpness with the L lens, but that's the only time. I recently switched to the new OS sigma from the I version of the L and I can not tell the difference in image quality. As it's been said here on POTN, the 70-200 2.8 is really just a luxury lens. I think it would be worth your while to rent two or three lens and see which one works best for you in your budget.

The sigma's have more PF and suffer from flare more than the 2.8 non-IS and a bit of a color cast, they might be a bit sharper at wide end and a touch less at long end, image quality is probably every bit as good as the IS mkI though and none of the three are bad. The AF is often less precise though which can be bad. None of the ones the newspaper had focused as precisely as the canon versions, everyone grabbed the canons first.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dwarrenr
Goldmember
Avatar
1,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Fairland, Indiana
     
Oct 12, 2010 13:55 |  #15

wombatHorror wrote in post #11083433 (external link)
The sigma's have more PF and suffer from flare more than the 2.8 non-IS and a bit of a color cast, they might be a bit sharper at wide end and a touch less at long end, image quality is probably every bit as good as the IS mkI though and none of the three are bad. The AF is often less precise though which can be bad. None of the ones the newspaper had focused as precisely as the canon versions, everyone grabbed the canons first.

That could be true as I have not shot the Canon II, and I've only shot a couple of games with the new Sigma...I have not had any issue with AF and in fact it seems to out preform the 70-200 I that I have. But once again I have not shot the II which of course has improved AF from the I.


D. Warren Robison
"All guys feel the need to compensate. Most compensate with sports cars. I compensate with a 400mm 2.8"
Flickr (external link) - Home Page (external link) - MaxPreps Gallery - (external link)Razzi (external link)
Equipment List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,867 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200mm non-is or 70-200mm IS- (Sharpness for Sports)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Kishmj
986 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.