Personal Statistical Account of 70-200 f2.8L IS and a question....

Seasons Greetings everyone.

 

I recently rented and did a couple of jobs with this lens and offer the

following stats.(I'm not a pro, but I shot a wedding and a some portraiture, and

will do more in the future)

 

I've read the topics on photo.net that I could find on similar topics but, this

inquiry is a bit more specific.

 

Of the 350 shots I made with the lens (granted indoors and with a flash and

monopod more for support than necessity), I averaged a shutter speed of 1/40th

and an aperture of f4. (not surprising given the nature of the indoor

sessions). Of these shots 58% were relatvely wide open at 2.8-3.2, 21% were

4-4.5, and 21% were 5.6 to 8. No shots were taken above f8. The IQ was

stunning, great bokeh, sharp, I never misfocused and so it's really hard to

fault this lens for anything other weight and price. I think am stuck on the use

of the f2.8 for the type of photography I like to do.

 

I've ruled out an 85 f1.8 and a 200 f2.8L based on lens change (in)convenience

and not missing a shot during a ceremony. So the question now is which flavour

of the lens. IS or no IS given an average shutter speed 1/40th and an ISO of 400?

 

PS Given that I used a monopod I don't believe I can draw an appropriate

conclusion of the IS vs no IS to make an appropriate decision. Does anyone have

any thoughts based on your use of either lens?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks in advance to photo.net and all the contributers. You have helped me

immsurable over the years

 

Cheers

 

John<div></div>

John, I have used both lenses - IS and non-IS: the usefulness and effectiveness of these lenses depend on how steady your hands are! If you have very steady hands then even 1/20 would produce sharpness. My hands are not steady enough and I use IS lenses where a get crisp sharp images at 1/6s!

Hi John, It's heavy. It's more expensive. It sticks out like a sore thumb. But the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS has saved my bacon many, many times and if I could keep only one zoom lens, that'd be it, bar none. It's that good, IMHO. Good luck!

You haven't given statistics, really, but impressionistic opinions. I don't find the picture sharp

at all... but what suffices for you is okay.

<p>I haven't used the non-IS version. I don't buy longer lenses without IS any more; IS is just too useful not to have it. At 1/40, either handheld or on a monopod, with a 70-200, IS will make a big difference between sharp and shaky.</p>

In the most basic sense the percentages given by John do count as statistics. Interpretation of statistics is another type of beast. His image isn't super sharp but unlike most of us he may not have sharpened it in photoshop. Percentage-wise, IS will most likely result in a higher percentage of sharper images on a monopod than non-IS on a monopod under similar low light conditions of a church. It's big and heavy. You may want to buy a black neoprene lens cover for this lens if you don't want the white to stand out. The way I look it is if you can afford IS technology then go for it. Since you don't want to buy a lot of fast primes because you don't want to constantly switch lenses I would say an IS zoom lens is a good way to go.

Thank you for your response

 

I guess it depends on what you define as statistics, but far be for me to play semantics with you. If you'd like to call my thoughts "impressionistic opinions" that's fine by me. The picture,...,I agree not as sharp as it could be,... my fault for a poor choice. Have you used either lens and can you offer any impressionistic opinions of your own?

 

 

 

Regards

John<div></div>

Sorry the images were too large,...

 

try this

 

 

Regards

John<div></div>

Thank you

 

Regards

<P>At 1/40th IS will be of great benefit, and will probably secure shots the non-IS would lose due to camera shake.<br>You can always turn IS off if you want, but you can't turn it on if you don't have it.</P>

"1/40th and an ISO of 400"

 

Definitely calls for the IS version. I own the non-IS 200/2.8 prime which is much sharper when you have adequate light, but I've rarely taken it to a wedding. And conversely, I haven't shot a wedding without the 70-200/2.8IS since I got it...