"EF 70-200mm F4 L USM" vs F4 L IS USM

Have been looking to upgrade my telephoto 'kit" lense on my EOS400D and

following a few lost on this and other sites. I thought I had decided on a new

lense and that being the Canon EF70-200mm F4 L IS USM. After reading seveal

posts there is much debate on the 'IS' vs "Non IS" required for kids

sport "soccer" in my case.

 

Some say you don't need it, while some say you do.

 

For us not so experienced people who are working our way through the DSLR

hobby I am at the point where I have no idea what I should get.If I listen to

th esales people in the stores I need to buy the most expensive lense I can

get. "I'm not that dumb"

 

My situation is - I shoot kids soccer, generally during the day on sunny days

or overcast. Occasionally, we have a late game, however, lights do not

normally come on until around 15 minutes from full time. I can get around the

side line fairly easily so I am not 'that' far from the action.

 

So what do I "Really" need? F4.0, 2.8. IS or non-IS

I don't really have the budget for F2.8 so I guess that rules that out.

Is there another lense I could get which is a bit more of an all-rounder that

will give me good sharp images.

 

My 70-300 kit lense works and can get the distance no problems ( I normally

shoot at around 120-210mm - rearly over. I can get the stop action speed out

of it but the picture quality is just not sharp enough.

 

 

Would love to make a decission soon.

I think it would help if you could post a picture or two (crops) of the kind that you would like your new lens to improve, as well as the main settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) you used. Exactly which lens do you have, by the way?

 

Sight unseen, I would choose f/2.8 over IS for sports, since it improves the shutter speed and also AF accuracy. At least as long as I don't have to carry/handhold the lens ;).

I have the f4L, non IS and I find it does the job in good light. I do miss a bit of reach shooting rugby/soccer and have thought about the 1.4xTC (which would take the lens to f/5.6 but increase its effective focal length to 448mm on my crop body. In short, although it is wonderfully sharp, I wish I had bought the f/2.8, which with a TC would be f/4 and still perform auto-focus well. Others will comment on the better models but you may also want to take a look at the Sigma, which is f/2.8 and cheaper. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm">70-200mm Sigma</a>

If it's an IS -v- non-IS decision then I can say - without the slightest hesitation - GET THE IS VERSION.

 

IS is all about steadying YOU - and with longer lenses there's no way that you'll hand-hold them well enough. Keeping in mind too that the IS version is 4th generation - good for up to FOUR stops (ie 1/30th instead of 1/500th) - it's one hell of a difference.

A photo with the f/4, non IS at 70mm on a 30D, ISO 400, 1/1600s at f/5.6. In Australia, low light is not the problem for these games - at evening its a different story.

Here is a sample of my son playing soccer. I would like assistance on what I am doing wrong or which lense I should get

 

Thanks

 

File Name 12.05.07 234.jpg

Camera Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL

Shooting Date/Time 12/05/2007 12:16:36 PM

Shooting Mode Manual Exposure

Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/800

Av( Aperture Value ) 5.0

Metering Mode Evaluative Metering

ISO Speed 200

Lens EF75-300mm f/4-5.6

Focal Length 110.0 mm

Image Size 959x1544

Image Quality Fine

Flash Off

White Balance Mode Auto

AF Mode AI Servo AF

Picture Style Standard

Sharpness 3

Contrast 0

Saturation 0

Color tone 0

Color Space sRGB

Noise Reduction Off

If you can swing the 2.8 I would go with the 2.8 over 4.0. Since you'll typically use a high shutter speed for sports I would say IS is not needed. I'm currently renting a 70-200 f/4 with IS and when I used it at the football game Thursday afternoon I turned IS off. My camera was set for TV mode at 1/500.

When I purchased my lens, the 2.8 IS, I was so glad I made the decision to go ahead with the "IS" version. This was the first time I had ever used "IS" in a lens. My first reaction upon looking through the viewfinder was nothing short of complete joy. The image literally froze before my eyes once I half pressed the shutter button. Awesome feature if you've never experienced it in real life. Plus the bokeh at 200mm and 2.8 is pretty amazing. Everything in the distance is nice and creamy and your subject is nice and sharp. Great lens all around. I will never part with mine.

 

I haven't used the f/4 versions so I can't comment on them.

 

Good luck in your decision. Just remember once you own the lens it is yours to keep. So get what you need the first time and never look back.

 

Justin

Your reason for thinking about f/2.8 seems to accommodate a very marginal situation. ("Occasionally, we have a late game...") Some thoughts...

 

In those darker marginal night game situations, one (but only one!) extra stop may help you a little bit, but it isn't like going from f/4 to f/1.4. If

you want a big difference in low light shooting, another option might be to add a wide prime to the f/4 zoom.

 

Larger apertures and IS both can help in low light, but in different ways. Larger apertures may let you shoot at higher shutter speeds, thus allowing

you to stop or slow action in somewhat lower light. IS reduces the effect of camera shake, letting you shoot at lower shutter speeds in low light

but you will be _less_ able to stop/slow subject motion. (Each has its advantages, but they occur it different situations.)

 

Certainly f/2.8 plus IS gives you the best of both worlds for low light telephoto zoom shooting, but at a cost - several costs, in fact. Obviously, the

f/2.8 IS lens is more costly. It is also quite a bit larger and heavier.

 

I like to say that "In photography, almost everything is a trade-off." It is a matter of picking the best accommodation for your shooting and your

situation. So, while the f/2.8 IS is arguably the best zoom solution for shooting low light kids' soccer matches, is it the best solution for all of your

telephoto zoom needs? Is the improvement worth the extra cost - in money and weight/size? How often? Are their other approaches that could

work?

 

Another option that could be cost effective and in some ways more flexible might be to consider the f/4 IS lens plus a suitable prime for those

times when you "occasionally" might shoot in marginal light. For all of the other times, the f/4 lens could well provide some advantages in

handling. Look at something along the lines of one of the wide aperture (f/1.4 to f/2) primes with a focal length of 85mm, 100mm or 135mm.

These would provide you with some options that you don't get from either of the 70-200 zooms (narrow depth of field and great background blur

for portraits, for example) and would not increase your overall cost. Depending on your field position when you shoot those occasional night

games one of these could work quite well there as well - or you could switch between the zoom and the prime as necessary.

 

Dan

IS is great, but it doesn't sound like you need it for your primary purpose. Remember that when shooting action, the only benefit of IS is that it helps steady you after hours of shooting with a heavy lens.

 

I shoot daylight action (surfing, volleyball) often with my 70-200 f/4L non-IS, and it works great. As long as you keep the shutter speed up (1/500 or better) you absolutely can hand hold it. It's not that heavy, so it doesn't wear on you and make you shake more over time.

 

Now if you were talking about a heavier and/or longer lens, I might say save for the IS. If you were talking about low light action work, I would say go for a f/2.8 lens (200 prime or 70-200).

 

But you're not. If money were no object you would have already ordered the IS version. It appears to be at least some concern, so get the non-IS version.

Paul - is the photo an actual pixels crop from the original, or the entire frame resized for upload?

Paul - I don't really see what the problem is except for the softness of the picture. I guess it could be slight misfocus (knee looks sharper than anything else), but softness and slow focus is an inherent quality of the 75-300. You can't really do much about the focus, but you can improve the sharpness by quite a bit if you stop down to about f/11 or so.

 

If all you shoot with a telephoto is sports, then IS will not help you. The speed at which camera shake becomes apparently is much slower than the speed needed to freeze motion. With that said, the 2.8 will give you an extra stop of "real" speed that the f/4 IS will not give you. Your next decision is to decide whether or not one stop is worth the $500 or so jump from the f/4 non-IS to the f/2.8 non-IS.

i'm in a similar boat. By no means a "pro", but possibly moving somewhere where I'll have to really scrap for a means of income (add that to some journalistic contacts in the area where we might go & I've thought maybe I could go "prepared" and shoot the occasional soccer game or concert or whatever as a freelance. Pipe dream? We'll see, but would hate to kick myself in hindsight).

 

Anyway, my two choices are the obvious ones that we all seem to get stuck with at some point (70-200 f2.8IS or f4IS) andI'm mainly down to the $$ factor as the main decider (2.8 ain't cheap). Unless you're in a super hurry, my recommendation is to rent a few times until you're sure. Rentglass.com cost me about $120 or something for a 2 week insured rental on each (easy and very trouble-free).

 

The 2.8IS wasn't nearly as big and heavy as I'd expected (though definitely more so than the 4), and though I didn't try the non IS versions of either, I simply get the feeling that IS is a life-saver in 90% of the situations that I'd be in (the only caveat being if you're a monopod guy or have bionic arms or something). Shot both from the stands of a semi-pro baseball game and though both ended up with "some" motion blur (was trying to stay around 800 ISO), I was at least not blurring things with my shaky-old self.

 

Bottom line... my feeling is that you'd do fine with the f4 since you'll rarely shoot in the "dark", but I would definitely go with the IS if money's not an issue.

There seems to be a general consensus that you "don't need IS for sports". IF all you are going to shoot are frozen frame shots at a bright, sunny game, then I can see validity in that. What about an evening game where the game goes longer? What about dark clouds? Slow shutter shots for "effect"? Are you definitely not going to use this lens anywhere but the soccer field?

 

People may argue that photography has got on for decades without IS, and that's true. They also got on without seatbelts, power brakes, power steering, halogen lights etc. on cars for years. Can you still drive a car without all of that? Sure. But with the exception of a classic car, why would you want to today when you have a fully loaded car within your budget?

 

If an IS version of ANY lens is in your budget, my advice is to get it. If anything, it will allow you reduce noise by lowering ISO for when times are dark and you can't get a fast enough shutter speed without higher ISO.

The problem with IS for action sports is two-fold, I think.

 

First, you have to half-depress the shutter for a half second or so before IS actually

becomes fully operative. While you can sometimes do that while shooting sports action, it

isn't always the case. Basically, IS doesn't work if you quickly raise the camera and fire.

 

Second, IS can create some odd effects when you move the camera in a way that is

different from camera shake - as the IS tries to compensate for motion it isn't designed to

work with. I suspect that the effect could be subtle, but if you start to pan to follow a

moving subject (at least with some IS lenses) my understanding is that the pan can "lag"

and "jump" a bit.

 

Dan

 

(Who is ready to be set straight by photographers with more experience using IS lenses to

shoot sports.)

For the soccer photo: I have tried AI Servo and One Shot and have returned to One Shot for these photos. I also use the Central focus point only - makes it more predicatable what you will get. Metering mode: centre is also set. (shooting RAW).

I owned the 70-200/4 IS and ended up selling it, primarily because I discovered that I had little use for IS. For me, IS isn't a substitute for a fast lens especially as the light gets low. And, I don't find IS useful at all for moving subjects; yes, IS can settle my hand but if my subject moves suddenly, the slow shutter speed will blur any movement. I'm typically interested in stopping the movement of the subject and in order to do this, a high shutter speed is necessary. Thus, I prefer my 200/2.8.

 

In sum, when the light gets really low for non-moving subjects (e.g., landscapes), I use a tripod and stop down for critical sharpness. When my subject is moving, I want a fast shutter speed. If I didn't ever use a tripod, and photographed a lot of still subjects, I could certainly see the advantage of IS.

Looking at your sample, you'd get more "pop" if you could shoot at F2.8. Not sure why you'd use manual mode - I'd go for Av @ F2.8 - and perhaps even up the ISO to 400.

 

I disagree with the others re: the need for IS - the general rule of thumb is that the average photographer needs AT LEAST the reciprocal of the focal length (also allowing for crop factor) as a shutter speed - but thats just the minimum. It's been said that to totally eliminate camera shake you need about 5 times that. With all of that taken into consideration, if you're positioned as a sniper with a rifle might be - just waiting for the shot - then you'll probably get away with non-IS just fine - however in these kinds of events you just don't have that luxury - it's more of a "quick draw" - and I'll bet if you could see a slow motion replay of a photographer shooting in those circumstances, you'd see the end of the lens wobbling all over the place.