70-200mm f2.8 IS or no IS

im going to buy one of these lenses for there great all round ability and low light ability

the IS version is alot more money approx $500 is it worth it, i have a 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS and TBH i have never had a sharp picture with IS, but im guessing the IS on this glass is alot better

what do you guys think?

Speaking for me only, I won't use the IS on this lens, because it's rather wide (f/2.8) and specific usage in my case, that is, I need to decide to go shooting wildlife or anything specific, so I'll be taking my tripod in that case,

The 28-135 is my all around lens however, so the IS comes in handy when light is insufficient.

That's why I'm getting the Sigma which has no IS.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ogilloire/

nick_eos said:

im going to buy one of these lenses for there great all round
ability and low light ability

the IS version is alot more money approx $500 is it worth it, i
have a 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS and TBH i have never had a sharp
picture with IS, but im guessing the IS on this glass is alot better

what do you guys think?

Click to expand...

nick_eos said:

im going to buy one of these lenses for there great all round
ability and low light ability

the IS version is alot more money approx $500 is it worth it, i
have a 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS and TBH i have never had a sharp
picture with IS, but im guessing the IS on this glass is alot better

what do you guys think?

Click to expand...

You must have a technique issue if you have never had a sharp one with IS. If that's the case, I don't believe the IS in 70-200 will help.

Remember money can't buy you techniques. Experiment different settings, learn from others and practice more, the film is free.
IMHO, it's either the Sigma 70-200 (if no IS) or the 70/200IS (if need IS).
--
Brian
San Antonio, TX
Home of the 1999 & 2003 NBA Championships
10D owner and love sharp images.
Sold my white IS lens, I'm less broke and happier now.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

First: I have the non-IS version, and it is sharp as hell. But I had a zoo shoot trip on Saturday, and I had a very low keeper rate, because I needed an extra couple of stops. I was using a monopod and running ISO400, f/4 or f/4.5 and 1/15th to 1/125 in general, and I had a lot of blurred shots. I detest going any higher on ISO for what I would want as high-quality 13x19 "framer's," and my keeper rate suffered.

As a result, I'm going to sell my non-IS, and get the IS. I tried to go "on the cheap" when I bought the non-IS (hard to think of more than $1k as cheap!), but never again.

Get the IS.
Wynn

nick_eos said:

im going to buy one of these lenses for there great all round
ability and low light ability

the IS version is alot more money approx $500 is it worth it, i
have a 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS and TBH i have never had a sharp
picture with IS, but im guessing the IS on this glass is alot better

what do you guys think?

Click to expand...

I went through the same question in April, it depends on what you want to shoot. Based on what I read and photos I compared I went with the IS version and I haven’t been disappointed. I do some birding and zoo shots with the lens, sometimes handheld while other times with a monopod. I tried some “typical” shots with and without the IS and for me there is a clear difference. I’ve since added a Canon 1.4xTC and am quite pleased with the results the way I shoot. It works for me.

Most of the birds and critters in my pbase galleries are with this lens. The aviaries where I shoot are quite dark. I’m a relative newbie, but some of the shots are probably OK.

Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

I agree with the others: if the decision is about f2.8 with or without IS, please go for the IS. Here's why:

• The IS on this lens is in a whole different league when compared to the IS on the 28-135IS. You'll love it. It comes in handy in all handheld situations, but specifically in low light, when using an extender or doing macro stuff. It also consumes a lot less power than the one in the 28-135IS (I have both).

• The 2001 Canon tech report says that the 70-200IS has
• almost twice the AF speed
• better bokeh because of circular aperture
• closest distance 1.4 instead of 1.5 m
• better environmental sealing (?)

see: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/200109.html

• The weight and size is almost the same
• The optical performance is almost the same. There are differences if you look at the MTF charts, but it is difficult to see which one is better, just different.

Two months ago, I too faced the "70-200 dilemma". I concluded that there were only two choices instead of four: 70-200f4 or 70-200IS. The 70-200f2.8 (whether Canon or Sigma) didn't make sense to me: why carry all that weight around for only one stop extra (hm, that only makes sense if money is not really a limiting factor...). Since I think IS is great, I went for the 70-200IS. Now, if Canon made an f4IS, THAT would be a difficult decision...

Henk
--
Photography is all about looking.

Doug J;

Your bird shots are considerably better than "OK". Really nice work.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and I am glad that I "bit the bullet" and went the extra money for the "IS". It is a lot more dollars but the results, in this case, justify it.

Dale53

Thanks for the kind comment Dale, I keep working on it. The IS costs considerably more, but as you said it is worth it. I have the 28-135 IS and came to appreciate the improvement IS adds for shots without a tripod, and it is a relatively light lens compared to the 70-200 2.8L. In my hands that big piece of glass moves a lot!

Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

Nick,

I have two IS lenses, the 28-135 and the 70-200. Like
you, I have never been very impressed by the 28-135 IS,
but one look at the comparison results between that and the
same image with the 70-200L IS shows that IS is not
the problem, lens sharpness is. I have almost never
had a soft image with the 70-200 IS. To get comparable
sharpness out of the camera with the 28-135 I discovered
after using it for a year and then using the 70-200 for
a few months that cranking the D60 in camera settings
for sharpness and contrast up a notch from standard actually
gave me images much closer to what I typically produced with
that lens using Photshop. And while not equal to the 70-200L
IS, not radically worst either. In contrast, the standard settings are great
for the 70-200L IS. So it is not IS that is the issue, it's the
optical quality. Both lenses can perform well, but in the final
analysis you need to decide how to use them to attain the
results you personally want to get out of the camera.

Where IS really shines is when, for instance, you are hikiing
up a hill and really blowing hard, and oh boy, get a picture of
that bird. I simply can not do it without IS. The body won't
hold still long enough unless it's extremely bright.

So you will not be disappointed by the IS in the best Canon lenses,
but it does cost. Now if only they would come out with IS
in the 24-70 and tighten up the focus bit.

Bob Watt

non IS for 1/200 and over ...

though it never hurts to have more than you currently need as people grow new interests over time.

Jim

http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/c2100uz.html

Hi Nick,

If you shoot low light at all, the IS is so wonderful. It really does allow you another stop and if you use a 1.4 extender it "buys back" the lost stop. Yes the 70-200 2.8 IS L is expensive and heavy but oh so good (kinda like my wife!) (Did I really say that?)

The IS does truly help with hand held shots and in tandem with the 2.8 allows faster shutter speeds. I have posted the below pic before, but it's a good example- hand held, dusk, about 30 yards to subject and obviously an action shot...



With full daylight its unbelievable (again hand held)



Cheers!
--
Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art

Hey those are very nice shots!!! Here's one I took with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS last week

DizzyArt said:

Hi Nick,

If you shoot low light at all, the IS is so wonderful. It really
does allow you another stop and if you use a 1.4 extender it "buys
back" the lost stop. Yes the 70-200 2.8 IS L is expensive and heavy
but oh so good (kinda like my wife!) (Did I really say that?)

The IS does truly help with hand held shots and in tandem with the
2.8 allows faster shutter speeds. I have posted the below pic
before, but it's a good example- hand held, dusk, about 30 yards
to subject and obviously an action shot...



With full daylight its unbelievable (again hand held)



Cheers!
--
Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art

Click to expand...

Thanks John,

Wow, your picture is "tack sharp". Whenever I try panning, the subject and the background merge into colorful blur! I'm better at shooting vehicles when they are stationary. Again, that's a great shot!

Parked Car.... (with 70-200 - IS turned on- slightly buZZed)



Cheers!

Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art

John M Perry said:

Hey those are very nice shots!!! Here's one I took with a 70-200
f/2.8 IS last week

Click to expand...

This brings up another point; the IS on the 70-200 is great for panning. It gives you a wonderful motion blur with a razor sharp subject. I took this last week with the 70-200IS.

nick_eos said:

the IS version is alot more money approx $500 is it worth it, i

Click to expand...

...costs far more than the initial cost of the lens. You will always wonder, in the back of your mind, "what if."

To me, it's not worth the up-front savings -- thus I have the IS version.

Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

Wynn Aker said:

First: I have the non-IS version, and it is sharp as hell. But I
had a zoo shoot trip on Saturday, and I had a very low keeper rate,
because I needed an extra couple of stops. I was using a monopod
and running ISO400, f/4 or f/4.5 and 1/15th to 1/125 in general,
and I had a lot of blurred shots. I detest going any higher on ISO
for what I would want as high-quality 13x19 "framer's," and my
keeper rate suffered.

Click to expand...

No disrespect intended but being stuborn is crazy.

First if you have a 10D or a 1D then push that ISO higher and get the shot instead of missing it. These cameras are capable of producing very nice high ISO pictures.

Second, if you refuse to use the very capable abilities of your camera to shoot with higher ISO then you really need to fork out some cash for the IS version.

It really is crazy to not get the picture when you could. I use to be the same way. When I had my D30 I would refuse to use anything higher than ISO 200. Once I got over that hang-up I missed a lot less and had more keepers. ISO 800 was pushing it with the D30 but it's nothing for the 10D or the 1D.

--
Greg M
http://www.mocanu.com/gallery/index.php
http://dslr.mocanu.com

I've definitely been accused of both stubborn and crazy in my life, but I'm pretty sure this time it's not the case!

Actually, I had a "plan" going in, and my "plan" was no more than ISO400, because my target was 13x19 prints on my Epson 2200. While I agree that ISO800 and ISO1600 are useable, they are problematic when blowing up that big, in my opinion. Explanation below.

I used ISO800 and 1600 extensively on a recent trip to France, shooting a wedding in natural light only, and also in the castles, museums and dungeons that we went where "no flash allowed." I'm plenty familiar with the high-ISO capability, but I did have a plan to not use it.

I was also unwilling to go with an aperture any wider than f/4, because I knew I HAD to use autofocus for the most part, because the monkeys, in particular, don't sit still well! So, I didn't want to open up as wide as f/2.8, in order to have a tiny buffer for DOF. Not much, but one stop.

Even bumping the ISO up to 800 would have only gained me one stop, which I would have used in shutter speed, not aperture, and with the amount of motion going on, that wouldn't have been a significant improvement in the keeper rate for at least half of them. I'm hopeful that the promised 2 to 3 stops of improvement with the IS version will get me a dollars-vs-benefits gain that I would have loved to have had last week.

So, I don't think I was "refusing to use the capabilities of the camera (sic);" rather, I didn't want to go over ISO400. I don't like the looks of NeatImage ... to plasticky of a final result. I'll take grain/noise over that!!! I'm not sure if when you had your D30 you ever pushed size up as high (or it's equivalent for a 3Mp), but my guess is that if you critically examined a 10D same-shot comparison at ISO400 and 800, you would pick 400, when blown up to 13x19.

I just yesterday spent a whole bunch on custom framing 2 of these shots ... I cannot believe how much custom framing is! But anyway, I'm totally happy with what I ended up with.

Might I have gotten a higher keeper rate with one more stop? Yeah, probably. But by doing so, would I maybe have reduced the overall quality of all of the shots by doing so? Quite possibly. And that was the tradeoff I made, with malice aforethought. I guess I was stubborn! ;-)

But thanks for the comments.

Greg M said:

Wynn Aker said:

First: I have the non-IS version, and it is sharp as hell. But I
had a zoo shoot trip on Saturday, and I had a very low keeper rate,
because I needed an extra couple of stops. I was using a monopod
and running ISO400, f/4 or f/4.5 and 1/15th to 1/125 in general,
and I had a lot of blurred shots. I detest going any higher on ISO
for what I would want as high-quality 13x19 "framer's," and my
keeper rate suffered.

Click to expand...

No disrespect intended but being stuborn is crazy.

First if you have a 10D or a 1D then push that ISO higher and get
the shot instead of missing it. These cameras are capable of
producing very nice high ISO pictures.

Second, if you refuse to use the very capable abilities of your
camera to shoot with higher ISO then you really need to fork out
some cash for the IS version.

It really is crazy to not get the picture when you could. I use to
be the same way. When I had my D30 I would refuse to use anything
higher than ISO 200. Once I got over that hang-up I missed a lot
less and had more keepers. ISO 800 was pushing it with the D30 but
it's nothing for the 10D or the 1D.

--
Greg M
http://www.mocanu.com/gallery/index.php
http://dslr.mocanu.com

Click to expand...