IS or no IS?

<p>I am looking at getting a Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8 USM lens.<br>

I can not decide if it is worth spending the extra $580 to get the IS version.<br>

I take sports phtoos for a local weekly newspaper. I currently use a 75-300 mm, no USM or IS. I get decent shots, but I want to expand to posting photos online, which I feel require better quality, and a better lens.<br>

What are your thoughts?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Since most sports photos require a high shutter speed of 1/400 or faster, you shouldn't really need IS. It comes in handy for longer shutter speeds 1/60 or so, but you're not likely to use that when shooting sports.</p>

<p>Use the $580 difference to buy an 85/1.8. It will give you shutter speeds you need in the dark venues where f/2.8 isn't enough. I've used the Nikon version heavily for basketball.</p>

<p>I have the VR (Nikon equiv of IS) turned off on my 70-200VR lens for sports. They say VR slows focussing down I don't know whether it's correct or not but I have found I get a higher proportion of focussed shots with it off. I generally try to use a minimum 1/800 sec shutter speed for Soccer so VR is of no assistance at that speed anyway.<br /> On the Canon lenses are they the same except for the IS?</p>

<p>As someone who went through the same dilema two years ago and opted for the non-IS version, I can tell you that I regret my decision. There are many times when I have had to shoot at lower shutter speeds at and near 200mm where IS iswould have been really nice to have. If you ever plan to shoot video with a future Canon DSLR, IS is really, really nice to have unless you are using a tripod.</p>

<p>James, Do you shoot in low speed without a tripod ? if no, dont waste your money in a 70-200 2.8 IS.<br>

I did it and I fell bad everytime that i stand my camera with this lens.<br>

I'm Surf Photographer and I use 70-200 with a waterhousing to do sessions inside the water and IS make the lens so heavy.<br>

I'm trying to sell it and buy a 70-200 2.8 USM.<br>

Hope that helps.<br>

Fraja</p>

<p>No brainer, IS.</p>

<p>If you don't use it immediately then you are not pushing yourself hard enough, but, you will start to use it soon, in two years you wouldn't be without it.</p>

<p>I use a monopod and shoot at shutter speeds of 1/400 at the slowest depending on the sport.<br>

I used my current lens today at 1/640, 1/800 and 1/1000 for a sunny afternoon soccer scrimmage. Some photos turned out blurry as it was my first game shooting soccer and I struggled to get proper focus. I don't know how much was me or the power of the lens to auto focus. I found auto focus was better than manual for soccer.<br>

I am curious for more input from Scott as to what makes the IS that much better.<br>

I really liked Nathan's explanation.<br>

Elliott, when do you need lower shutter speeds for sports? Would you say that if I shoot at 1/400 or faster, I would still need the IS?<br>

Thanks for all the input.</p>

 

<p>Hi James,</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 f2.8IS and the 300 f2.8IS that I often use with the 2x converter. I was sceptical of IS before I bought into it, now I wouldn't be without it.</p>

<p>In theory of course the answers saying you don't need it are correct, this isn't theory though it is proven knowledge. IF you can maintain high enough shutter speeds to freeze the action every shot, if you never want to pan to blur the background to get some isolation or a sense of movement (bikes, motorcycles, cars, ice skaters, horses, etc etc), if you never have to push your focal length/shutter speed multiple and you are working inside, or on dull afternoons, nudging your iso limits for slower sports (gymnastics, bowling, wrestling, cheerleading where you can anticipate the action and moments of pause etc etc) or medal giving or anything else like it. The reasons go on and on. There are a few sports shooters out there with VERY defined niches that have no need for IS, I know of one. All the rest have IS or VR. The abilities and capabilities of today's cameras and lenses and the imagination of the few leaders of the genre out there push everybody worth anything, if you are going to do this, if you want to do it right and don't want to be limited by your equipment only your imagination get the best. In the 70-200 range the best pro sports lens Canon makes is the 70-200 f2.8IS. There is a rumour that it is due an upgrade, the current version is so good I won't, so don't worry about getting one now.</p>

<p>I did get it and didn't regret it, Elliot didn't get it and does regret it (for some of the reasons I have listed). I have Canons, my experience is much better than Richards with his Nikons, I use mine on monopods, tripods, when panning and when trying to take stable stills, basically the thing is on most of the time, it does not slow down focus and the keeper rate is much higher with it on. Nikon's early VR was a licensed, dumbed down, version of Canons though so that could be the reason for the difference.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for the time and attention to my question.</p>

<p>James you are very welcome. The one big drawback to IS use though is batteries. On my old 1 Series I could go through three batteries in a days shooting just with Servo Focus and IS running nearly full time. If you go for it make sure you allow for that.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p><em>"Elliott, when do you need lower shutter speeds for sports"</em> When the lighting warrants it - mainly for indoor sports where the lighting is poor. There is no substitute for IS when shooting hand held video.</p>

Persoanlly I rarely use IS for sports on my 300mm f2.8 IS or the 500mm f4 IS. That is why I picked on no IS 70-200mm f2.8. I use monopod when using anything at 300 or greater focal length. Now this is for field sports like football, baseball, soccer etc. I can see that IS being useful for indoor low light stuff. But if budget is tight, go ahead with the non IS version.

 

Regarding comment about IS going through batteries. Maybe the person repsonding was using original 1d but the 1dmk2, 1dmk2N last long time even when using IS lenses. Battery life has never been an issue to me shooting 2 games back to back. But I do have a spare just in case.

<p ><strong><em>"There are a few sports shooters out there with VERY defined niches that have no need for IS, I know of one."</em></strong> :) Hello Scott.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >James:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I bought it and bought the 85mm with the extra $, just as suggested above. I shoot a lot of Swimming and that is why I bought those two lenses – just for swimming –not the combatants standing on the dais, inside, in low light and no Flash Rule (like where IS might be handy?) – but just the swimming bit when they are diving / starting or just in the water.</p>

<p ></p>

<p >I have not really found a lot of uses for my 70 to 200 other than for swimming, and loaning it to my daughter and a bit of Field Hockey: which might sound strange but it is the truth. I very rarely use it for Weddings - I do not use it for Portraits and I don't recreationally "walk around" with it. So I can honestly say I am very happy with my purchase and that was about five years ago.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BUT:</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >I think that there are few people who buy such a lens and use it exclusively for ONE or a limited use as it is an amazing lens . . .</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >AND: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have easy access to a 70 to 200F2.8LIS (and a 300 and 400) and I borrowed the 70 to 200 IS to use on some Snowboard Championships I did a couple of years ago . . . (i.e. panning IS)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >SO:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As soon as one gets out of a "niche" as Scott put it, one DOES NOT want to be limited by the limitations of the gear . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO, unless you are very, very, very sure you only will use the lens in a situation where the Tv will ALWAYS be the deciding factor: Do as Scott suggests and <strong ><em >get the IS version </em></strong>. . . it is pretty handy F/4 outside, with the x1.4MkII on board, too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, even though you might be shooting > 1/800s most of the time, a monopod is handy if you are working long hours – it helps the right shoulder and wrist.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

Hi William W good to hear from you :-) What is wrong though with niche? It sounds like I spelt it wrong but I didn't "niche: a specialized but profitable corner of the market".

 

 

Vishi, I use 1D and used to use 1D MkIIN, the batteries are the same, they last the same too. If i spend a day covering surfing and have IS and Servo on than I will go through three batteries. Not sure how my new 1Ds MkIII will do with the newer LP-E4 batteries, I am waiting for the winter storms :-), so far they are a big improvement.

 

 

And, you make my point "I rarely use IS for sports" rarely is good enough for me. Others might use it less or more than I do, in a previous thread William and I had discussed my heavy IS usage, but when you need it nothing else will do.

 

 

Take care all, Scott.

<p><strong><em> What is wrong though with niche?</em></strong> . . . nothing wrong with your spelling or usage or meaning: I was just emphasising the very nice word "niche", by using the inverted commas. . . which is why I mentioned the swimmers on the dais: where IS WOULD be useful for example, just to show how even within the niche of one sport there would be times when IS will be necessary.<br>

<br>

CU<br>

<br>

William</p>

 

<p>I'm an old guy - been working at newspapers (shooting) since mid-1974. I traded in my Nikon stuff for Canon back around 1992 when my eyesight started going. Not long ago I bought digital bodies for all those lenses. Late last month I bought my first IS lens - 70-300 IS USM f4-5.6. I learned Friday night that it's not much benefit for night football other than for a few minutes between daylight and full-dark.<br>

I used it a while and put it away, went back to the 300 2.8 on a monopod and 80-200 2.8 handheld.<br>

Saturday morning, however, I used it at youth football and found it to be wonderful. With the IS turned on I got shots of a kid running with the ball and a horde of other kids chasing him. The kid with the ball is tack-sharp and the others are soft and streaky. This stuff's beautiful. I was experimenting with the new IS lens, so was also shooting with the 80-200 on another body and also let a friend who's learning to shoot use the 80-200. The difference in the results between the two lenses is amazing.<br>

The IS also is useful - VERY - in shooting at 300 mm handheld at a far away subject. I shot painters hanging over the edge of the roof of a several-story-tall building yesterday and was awed by the change when I turned the IS on and off. After that I shot some close-ups of a big spider, experimenting turning the IS on and off. Makes a BIG difference.<br>

I guarantee you, I'll have more IS lenses as I can afford them. I don't foresee a need for IS on shorter lenses, though. If anyone does, I'd like to hear about it.</p><div></div>

<p>CJ,</p>

<p>I have felt the same about short lenses, even posted to that effect before, however, I just made a quick one body one lens trip, I took a 24-70 f2.8, my body is not a super high performing higher iso body so I keep the iso down as low as possible. I kept bumping into camera shake. When they bring out an IS version of that lens I will upgrade. With more gear I could have worked around it, either a better high iso camera or a set of faster primes, but with what I had I missed several pictures that I could have nailed if I had IS on that lens.</p>

<p>As a picture is worth a thousand words, an example, not sports but an example of how, in this instance, IS would have been good on a 24-70. EXIF shows 1/8 sec at 2.8 at 60mm.</p><div></div>

<p ><em><strong>"I don't foresee a need for IS on shorter lenses, though. If anyone does, I'd like to hear about it."</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Travel et al: In all situations where tripods are not allowed or inappropriate - inside Churches, nightscapes etc. The EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS USM is a cracker lens - Tamron are to release their version, I believe.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Two similar examples to Scott's - Security would not allow a tripod (or monopod) on this wharf - IS would have allowed me a lower ISO and for the "That Side" a smaller Aperture. </p>

<p ><br />"That Side 04493 F1.4@1/8s@ISO1600 HH" <a href="../photo/9199113">http://www.photo.net/photo/9199113</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >and</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"This Side 04496 F5@1/2s@ISO1600 HH" <a href="../photo/9199072">http://www.photo.net/photo/9199072</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Both are a 5D and 24L</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>That's a good answer - I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to go anywhere like that, though. But I find I can handhold shorter lenses pretty well - certainly well enough to produce an image decent enough for newspaper work.<br>

I have a 20-35 2.8 and a 10-22 2.8 that are pretty sharp, though the 20-35 is nearly 20 years old. (It's no longer sharp, but it's going in for a cleaning and realignment in a couple weeks. They promise it'll come back sharp as new. We'll see.) I've handheld them down to more than a second. Images are not razor sharp in most cases, but are plenty good enough.<br>

Somewhere I have an old B&W print of a shot I made in the late '70s of a crumpled bicycle on the highway where a kid had been hit and killed. The only illumination I had was from car headlights. I started about 1/4 second and tried a variety up to about 8 seconds. I got a really good, sharp (and correctly exposed) image about midway - probably about 2 seconds.<br>

I've never tried to shoot where tripods/monopods weren't allowed, though I have shot indoors at events where I couldn't haul a tripod/monopod. After my son's wedding in Chicago, we went to a museum (???) and I got a bunch of shots of my grandchildren. I always stick that 20-35 on when I know I'm gonna be in low light situations like that because I know it can be handheld. Maybe someday I'll get to try an IS 20-35.<br>

I'm interested now in that 24-70 that Scott wrote about. I'd read about it a couple months back, but needed the 70-300 more. Now I need (want) something even longer - for birds.<br>

This didn't start as my thread, but I appreciate the comments. My next lens probably is going to be a long one. I'm saving for the 400 2.8. I hope I live long enough ...</p>

<p>cjn</p>

<p>Many Churches and other places of historical / visitor interest where Photography is allowed, do not allow tripods (or monopods) because of possible accidents and the Public liability claims which might follow. I think this is becoming more prevalent. Certainly (as a spectator) I can no longer take a monopod into a few stadiums and football grounds, whereas a few years ago I could. I live in Australia, but I noticed the same rules in many European Countries. I have not been to the USA since the Atlanta Olympics, though.</p>

<p>It is fun to play the game: "how slow can I go", and I am proud of my two examples above at Tv = 1/8s & Tv = 1/2s hand held: but if one is being paid to perform, this is not a fun game to play . . . that’s another reason why the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS USM is a very popular choice for Wedding Professionals and so, another use of IS at a short FL is for dragging the shutter.</p>

<p>When using Flash, if one <strong><em>knows</em></strong> that the shutter can be dragged to even Tv = 1/8s then there is no “hit and miss” re camera shake: it is just a matter of getting the subjects to “breath in half exhale and hold” for those stunning sunset shots . . . with perfect Flash Exposure on the Skin Tones and the Bridal Gown.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><em><strong>"This didn't start as my thread, but I appreciate the comments. My next lens probably is going to be a long one. I'm saving for the 400 2.8."</strong></em></p>

<p >The 400F/2.8LIS USM is an amazing lens. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don't do birds that much (easy on the quips) . . . so I am not making any expert comment re bird Photography: but, if I were hiking around I prefer to haul the 300F/2.8L and a x1.4MkII, just because of the weight and size - I dunno if bird photography means much carrying of gear, or not: my selection of "Seagulls" is in my Portfolio just for fun.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, IMO if I had to buy those lenses with my own money - which I will have to do in the next few years - I would get the 300F/2.8 and the 500F/4, as a pair, rather than the 400F/2.8. I think that makes for a more flexible kit and better companion for the 70 to 200. . . I do already have the x1.4MkII and x2.0MkII. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Those are just some general thoughts to chuck around, re the tele lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>I have the older (AE) 2.0 converter which I use behind an old 300 f4 lens sometimes. It's manual focus, of course, and manual aperture, but I've had to use it a couple times. It makes a real sharp image but it's REAL cumbersome.<br>

My 300 2.8 also is old, manual everything, but I use it almost exclusively for sports at night. I was using it during the day for sports, but it, too, was awkward, though easier to focus than the f4. I use it wide open at night and do OK. My friend Mike can't grasp the concept of manually focusing on a running football player, but I've been doing it since the '70s. I get a higher percentage of sharp stuff using the newer 80-200, but I get plenty enough for the paper.<br>

I mentioned birds - I haven't made a hobby of shooting birds, though I like them and there are a lot around - I see ospreys and eagles and hawks every day and lately I've started trying to get some good shots. I stopped on the way to work a couple weeks back and shot an eagle with the 80-200 then put my off-brand 2.0 converter behind it and shot a few more. It won't autofocus with the converter, though it's supposed to. Below is an eagle shot with the Vivitar 1.4 behind the Canon 80-200 2.8. Sharp enough, but not quite sharp enough. Certainly not poster size.<br>

cj</p><div></div>

<p>Forgot to mention - I haven't had time to stop for a bird (or anything else) in the last couple weeks since I bought the new 70-300 IS. I have football tonight, and parades tomorrow, so, unless an eagle or osprey lands on a parade float, I'm not likely to have time the next few daze either.<br>

My friend Mike and I are just now trying to start a side biz selling shots of kids sports. We've got lots of images, but haven't figured out the best way to go about selling them. Back in the '70s I'd shoot LL baseball every night, go home and develop and print B&W and bring them to the field the next night. Sold literally ALL I printed every evening.<br>

That's not realistic now. Looking at options - Shutterbug offers interesting services. time for a new thread, I guess</p>

<p>Ain't life grand</p>

<p>cj</p>