Jump to content

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Got IS?


35mmdelux

Recommended Posts

<p>Is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens any good without IS? I'd like to buy a zoom lens to take pix of my son's sports. Mostly outside sports; occasionally inside but well lit.<br>

Going to put it on 5dMKII.<br>

The IS model cost twice as much. Thanks - Paul</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welll you wont have any trouble outside with the camera your using, I shoot at around 1200 shutter speed with the f4 stop,as far as inside

,i havent had a ton of luck for real large group action,but shooting at 800 or maybe 1000 with a 580ex forcing the flash to be in manual

zoom mode and pick your average distance ,you should have some very nice shots,I dont selll any of those shots but they are veey

useable for most other personal photos,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Can you run the sideline? that's a big consideration.<br>

Also how big is the field (especially the width if you are on the sideline) - American Football? Soccer? Rugby? or is it a mini field for younger players?</p>

<p>If the Budget is tight: a quality (second hand) EF70 to 200 F/2.8L and the x2.0MkII EF Canon Tele - Extender would be worth consideration - that would probably be more than a new EF 70 to 200F/4, (I guess?) </p>

<p>I shoot quite a lot of Hockey (Field Hockey) - If I were shooting with one camera I would like 140mm to 400mm on a 5D, rather than 70mm to 200mm.</p>

<p>The particular lens (70 to 200 F/2.8) and the x2.0MkII would do a good job on a 5DMkII.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>A (second hand) EF300F/4 IS would be worth a look also - you can crop quite a bit out of a 5DMkII's image in post production. </p>

<p>WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>William has a good point about the reach with the 200mm on a 5D, the 300mm f4 IS is a great lens, but it is more than the 70-200f4IS and close to the price of a 70-200mm f2.8L. If cost is an issue I would get the 200mmf2.8L prime, because with football you will be at 200mm most of the time any way, and it is one stop faster.<br>

Here is my ranking (considering price):<br>

200mm f2.8L<br>

70-200mm f4L<br>

70-200mm f2.8L<br>

300mm f4L IS<br>

All are outstanding lenses, I've owned them all, my 70-200's are IS but IS is not needed for sports at 200mm. The 300mm is my favorite (probably the sharpest of the bunch) but it is the least versatile so I put it last. If you already had one of the shorter lenses on this list I would put it first. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you for your great suggestions. I'm leaning towards the faster 200/2.8 as I would probably be shooting at the outer limit of the 70-200mm as Dave suggested and its 1 step faster when moving indoors. I mainly shoot fast 35/50 on my Leica. Longer lenses and sports are new to me. My son is 10 years old and loves sports. Ideally I'd like not to carry more than 2 lens sports kit.<br /> Thanks again -- Paul</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS - which I chose over the Canon f/4 and f/2.8 - is a fantastic lens, and it compares <em>absolutely </em>with my shooting partner's new Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II: the Canon might be a <em>tiny </em>bit faster-focusing, but not meaningfully so in any way, and in IQ terms it wants for nothing.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've taken tens of thousands of shots with my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. I looked through them to see how often I really made use of the IS and it was probably less than 10% of the time. That's increasing a bit now that I'm using it with a 2.0X TC as a 400mm lens on my 5D MkIII (you can't do that with your MkII, but you may buy a MkIII one day).</p>

<p>Here's a type of shot where it paid off:</p>

<p><a title="Kneeling before God and the assembly by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" Kneeling before God and the assembly src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5311/7386908948_831e6225c5_c.jpg" alt="Kneeling before God and the assembly" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IS do not stop movement, it's usefullnes very limited with fast moving subjects. Canon 70-200/2.8 without IS much better for sport, price the same as 70-200/4 IS and camera focusing way better with 2.8 lenses, more crosstype sensors active.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>IS do not stop movement, it's usefullnes very limited with fast moving subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Y'know, I read that a lot, and it's just not true. IS <em>is</em> potentially very useful with fast moving subjects, especially if you're handholding. </p>

<p>For example, it makes placing the AF point exactly where it needs to be, much easier.</p>

<p>And - self-evidently - anything which makes for a more stable platform provides an advantage, regardless of how fast the subject is moving.</p>

<p>In particular, if you're <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_3.jpg">panning with fast-moving subjects and using a slow shutter speed</a>, IS is worth its weight in gold.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nick said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IS do not stop movement, it's usefullnes very limited with fast moving subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well duh! Why does someone always chime in with this redundent comment? IS allows lower SS, exactly the opposite of what you need to stop action.</p>

<p>People say no IS is better for sport, I call BS. I shoot some sport, but mainly wildlife, and IS is invaluable when shooting animals in early morning light. My SS will often be up at 1,000-sec, but the stabilization makes it easier for me to keep the AF point on the subject's eye. With the latest generation of lenses, hand holding a shot of the moon at 1/40-second is now very doable. Here's 1,000mm at 1/40-sec.:</p>

<p><a title="Gibbous Waxing Moon by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" Gibbous Waxing Moon src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/9508049292_36bf2723a6_z.jpg" alt="Gibbous Waxing Moon" width="640" height="640" /></a></p>

<p>I say, get IS if you can afford it. It makes for a much more flexible and useful lens. If you're <em>only</em> going to use the lens at high SS, then maybe you don't need it, but I suggest you think about why you're limiting yourself artificially. Cost is a justifiable reason. These things aren't cheap, but they are good and really do work as advertised. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another point about IS for fast-moving subjects: most stabilised lenses include a panning mode <em>specifically for </em>the kind of slow shutter speed/fast subject imaging that is so prevalent in motor sport photography - it couldn't be clearer that at a fundamental design level, IS is intended to provide value in "fast subject matter" situations.</p>

<p>I shoot aircraft too: IS makes it an order of magnitude easier to get <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/ncl_270713/lancaster_NCL_BW_5.jpg">sharp aircraft <em>and </em>prop blur</a> at the kind of low shutter speeds that are needed for prop blur. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've got the 70-200/4 non IS, I think it's excellent. Image quality is what you would expect for an L and it's very light too.<br>

I like mine so much that when I bought the 2.8 IS, I kept the f4 as a lightweight travelling lens.<br>

My 2p</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was shooting 1D 3 with Tamron 70-300 VC , fast shutter speed , 10 frames per second rate bursts, more out of focus images when IS is on. It is my personal experience.<br>

So I dig internet on subject of IS, found interesting article from Tom Hogan, who is stating that IS benefits are highly overrated and most of sport shooters turning it off. His conclusion is simple: turn it on only when you really need it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nick, Thom Hogan doesn't shoot fast subject matter - he can be an interesting read, but I have absolutely no faith in his opinion of the value of stabilisation for that kind of photography.</p>

<p>I haven't experienced any problems with OOF shots at high frame rates from my 7D/Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS or 120-300mm f/2.8 OS combos - I expect, <em>and get</em>, sharp, in-focus images when I shoot bursts.</p>

<p>IS is on <em>all the time </em>when I shoot: there is <em>never</em> a case, in my view, for not using it when shooting handheld. It is completely illogical to suggest that anything which provides stability is not a good idea <em>at all times</em> - it's certainly possible to get visible camera shake even at high shutter speeds (I often shoot in pretty strong winds which knock the big Sigma lens around), and IS goes a long way to removing that risk from the equation.</p>

<p>A good friend of mine is a UK pro called Nigel Blake. As well as being a superb bird photographer, he's pretty much the no. 1 guy in the UK for <a href=" McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 84-0010 military jet photography</a>:</p>

<p>He does much of this work handheld, and he uses stabilisation at all times too.</p>

<p>If it works for him, it's <em>self-evidently </em>worth doing: this is Nigel's bread and butter, and he doesn't do anything that might diminish his ability to get saleable images. So if he's using IS, it's because he has decided that it's a good idea. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the 70-200 focal length. If you

know that you will enjoy it, spring for

the IS. Yes it's twice expensive, but you

will get more twice the use out of it. I

shoot some low light stuff at 1/15! I

had the non IS first and eventually sold

it (for a profit) and got a decent deal on

the IS model.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There's one reason that I just remembered that some people may have trouble with IS. It actually takes a fraction of a second to spool up. It's really noticeable on my 500mm. Also, while it's spooling up, it can shake the lens. I can see this by putting my 500mm on a tripod, aiming it at the moon, going to 10X live view and then pressing the remote release half way down, then releasing, then pressing. When I initially press the release half way down, the image shakes, then quickly stabilizes. If you focus, either half-way down or back button, then release and then grab the shot without any wait for the IS to stabilize, then you might compromise IQ. It's a fraction of a second. My litle test is very easy to do and you'll learn a little more about your lenses.</p>

<p>I'm sorry that I forgot to mention this earlier. I tend to shoot moving birds in AI Servo mode, so I've got the IS humming all the time. It's become so ingrained to my technique that I forgot that it's an adjustment that I made for IS. A noob to IS should be aware of this and use IS accordingly.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think that everyone that does any action shooting should try back-button AF for themselves. I did, but had shot so many thousands of shots with half-shutter that I didn't see a benefit. It's one less thing for my thumb to do while it's also steering AF points, adjusting EV, etc., all on the fly. I suppose if my half-button experience wasn't already ingrained at the spinal level, then I might have taken more positively to back-button.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Exactly Keith. I just wanted to make it clear that some might actually see degradation with IS and there's at least one explanation that I've seen personally. Once you know it, the "problem" is resolved. However, many don't seem to know this.</p>

<p>Good point about the non-sensing IS on tripod. I've read that this is a big problem with many Nikon lenses and, some older Canons can have this problem. Once again, the ole 10x live view test will confirm whether or not it could be an issue for your lens/camera/tripod combination. If the image doesn't quickly settle down, then turn off IS.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...