Image stabilization worth the extra cost?

<p>Hi there,<br>

I am looking at buying the Canon 70-200mm L series lens. I am trying to justify the extra cost of getting the IS version of this lens. My budget is about $800. So my question is, should I get the non-IS version now or save up a bit and get the IS version later. Is the Image Stabilization worth the extra cost?<br>

I want to use it for sports photography (mostly outdoors but some indoors) and have a Rebel T1i. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>IS isn't designed for use with moving subjects so it might be of limited use for your sports shots. IS reduces blur from camera shake only.</p>

<p>IMO i say save up a bit more or look for a used 2.8 version without IS or maybe a fast prime like the 135 2.0 or 85 1.8. the reason is most sports will be fast action ( fast shutter ) negating the benefit of IS. If your shooting outdoors the IS is even less useful. Consider a decent tripod or monopod as well.</p>

<p>If you plan to hand hold the shot, IS is valuable with a lens of that magnification.</p>

<p>For sports and action photography, the IS has limited use, unless you're sitting in the stands and can't use a tripod. Even if you are hand-holding, you still can probably get away without IS because typically you are going to be using very fast shutter speeds to freeze subject motion, easily less than 1/200s. 1/1000 and faster is not unusual for sports/action. At that speed camera shake is not the critical determinant of sharpness.</p>

<p>IS is for people who are taking photos:</p>

<ol>

<li>of subjects that are not moving a whole lot</li>

<li>in low-light conditions where fast shutter speeds are not feasible</li>

<li>where discretion is desired--i.e., you can't use tripod or don't want to be conspicuous</li>

</ol>

<p>I agree with the others. If you need to hand-hold, it's definitely worth getting the IS, but it's pointless if you are using a tripod. I suspect if you get IS, you'll find yourself hand-holding more often.</p>

<p>You might want to read the article at<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml<br>

It was informative to me, as I'm considering purchasing this lens too.<br>

Jim McMann<br>

San Jose, CA</p>

<p>I didn't see what you were considering: the f/2.8 or the f/4 version?<br>

Even in pan mode, IS does nothing for me as a wedding photographer when I'm tripod mounted, which is typical of a sports shooter, no?<br>

However, shooting and focusing @ f/2.8 does.<br>

In order to freeze action, you need, what, 1/200th? I think that's right, I forget exact speeds. It's around there. With a shutter speed high enough to effectively freeze your subject playing on an indoor court, my personal opinion is that you're not really going to need IS that much. A fast aperture on a tri- or monopod will suit you much, much better.</p>

<p>OTOH, image stabilizer will indeed benefit you if you ever, say, shoot at a play, a concert, across a dark room towards a stationary object, shoot slow moving or stationary things at night, want to pan with your subject at low shutter speeds, etc.</p>

<p>Thanks a bunch for all of your comments. There was some good information. I will most likely end up buying the non-IS version. I will, however, keep an eye out for a possible deal on a used IS lens. Probably hard to come by but you never know.<br />Thanks again.</p>

<p>I'm considering 70-200 as well. For Wedding photography, could the 70-200 non-IS be used?</p>

<p>If your main reason for getting a lens is for action sports, then IS is of limited usefullness. IS deals with camera shake from hand holding the camera at low shutter speeds. At such slow shutter speeds your subjects will likely be <em>more</em> blurred than they would be if you used the <em>largest aperture</em> , and <em>higher ISO</em> , and a <em>faster shutter</em> speed.</p>

Just got myself the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS to use for indoor and outdoor sports. I'm always shooting at 1/500 sec or above handheld and haven't had any issues with shake. This is always at f/2.8. You don't mention whether or not you're interested in the f/2.8 or f/4 version, but I'd definitely recommend the f/2.8 non-IS over the f/4 IS for sports.

<p>I'll also throw in the suggestion to consider the irrational / human nature side of the question. Say I'm considering a new widget, in this case a lens, and I can get it with or without IS. I can list 10 reasons why I don't "need" IS but if that little voice in my head keeps saying "yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to have it" then maybe I ought to just spend the money and be done with it.</p>

<p>I'm just throwing this out there for condsideration... I'm not advocating this approach. Listening to the voices in my head already gets me in enough trouble.</p>

<p>O.K. you should always listen to the experts.</p>

<p>But one thing: on a crop camera I get reliable results at shutterspeeds of 1/25 with the IS version of the F4 at 200mm.</p>

<p>That's gotta be worth something at any time other than during pure die hard fast moving target photography.</p>

<p>So the question is... are you sure you'll only use the lens for fast moving objects?</p>

<p>Darren,<br>

Yeah, go for it. In fact you can get a better deal by hunting for an 80-200 f/2.8L (yes, "80"), if you're looking for a good cost/benefit solution to avoid dropping $1200 into one lens. I've seen one go on the Auction Site for $500 US, and they hover around 5-650 USD dependping on condition and accesories.</p>

 

<p>I found the 70-200 F2.8 non IS to be sharper than the IS version. As others have said for sports with a DSLR you do not need IS as you can use higher ISOs and you need to stop subject motion. You may find that the 70-200 F4 (IS or non IS) may be a bit slow for indoor sports. I find that at some hockey venues I need both F2.8 and ISO 1600 on my 5DII to get shutter speeds above 1/250. I would be tempted to save and get the 70-200 F2.8 non IS rather than the 70-200 F4 IS if I was shooting sports as IS never gives the extra stop. The 70-200 F4 (non IS) is a very good lens. Look at what speeds you are getting, the ISo you need and the type of sports you shoot.</p>

<p>I find Mode 2 stabilisation very useful for panning shots. Here only the vertical shake is corrected so you get a much clearer panning shot. </p><div></div>

<p>Daniel:</p>

<p>I'd buy the IS. Even if I had to save up and wait. You can *always* turn the IS off if you don't want it.</p>

<p>Even if the subject is moving fast and you're shooting at high shutter speeds, IS is helpful when you are looking through a lens for a long time. Helps reduce eye fatique if the image is more stable.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Hi Daniel,<br>

You say you have $800.00 to spend but you did not say if you were looking to buy a f2.8 or an f4. I could not afford the 2.8IS, but I did want the IS even if I don't always need or use it. I bought the 70-200L f4IS and love it. I've read that it has a more newer generation of stabilisation than the f2.8, but that's not an issue here. I bought mine for about $1000.00 during the Canon rebate, which isn't too much more than what you are looking to spend. </p>

<p>I'd wait until you can afford the IS. It's better to have it and not need it...</p>

<p>Kevin </p>

 

<p>I find IS is worth the price as you will certainly find a need to hand hold it. You can get sharp shots at very low shutter speeds. It's kind of like cruise control... Once you use it, you will miss not having it.</p>

 

<p>I have the 70-200 IS version. Yes, you can shoot w/o IS, but it comes oh so handy at times. It is worth the additional cost IMHO.</p>

<p>I also agree that the IS is worth the extra cost on the 70-200/2.8. I've had excellent results with fast action using this lens. It's been my lens of choice at air shows and at the US Nationals drag races every year.</p>

<p>The EF 70-200/4 L is reportedly sharper than the 70-200/2.8 L, and the 70-200/4 IS L is reportedly sharper than the non-IS version. So for my applications (walkabout use), the choice would be a no-brainer. But I'm still more than content with my ancient 80-200/2.8 L. </p>

<p>You'll love the IS when you need it. This shot was taken hand-held with my 50D and 70-200 2.8L IS @ 200mm, f2.8, and 1/25. That's a full 3 stops below the 1/FL rule, and nearly 4 stops if you include the crop factor.</p><div></div>

<p><strong><em>"Canon 70-200mm L series lens . . . should I get the non-IS . . . I want to use it for sports photography (mostly outdoors but some indoors).</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>Is the Image Stabilization worth the extra cost?" </em></strong><br>

NO: <br>

. If the lens will ONLY be used for sports photography AND<br>

. that sport never requires panning capture AND<br>

. that sport (when in low light) requires a shutter speed (around) 1/320s or faster to freeze motion<br>

<br>

YES:<br>

If <em><strong>all three</strong></em> above do not apply.<br>

<br>

In either case a monopod will be likely more your friend than a tripod.<br>

For indoor sport do not consider the F4 version. Also for indoor sport F2.8 might be too slow in some circumstances: in this case the 85F1.8 will be your friend. <br>

I think very few people buy a 70 to 200F2.8, only to use it for sport.<br>

WW</p>