Image Stabalization question

[richard_pannone]

Hi Everyone,

 

I'm new to the site and I've been doing photography seriously for about a

year. I've been reading everything I can get my hands on and experimenting

alot. I have a Canon XTI which came with a 17-85mm, f4-5.6 lens. I have been

doing sports photography with my children and the local sports in town. I

established a Shutterfly account and started selling some of my action photos

to other parents. I plan on doing more and getting more involved in this

activity in the future.

 

Now, I realize that I need a bigger lens so I've been on the phone with Canon

discussing their zoom telephotos and reading posts on this site. I'm considing

either the 2.8 70-200 lens with Image stabalization or this same lens without

the IS. The difference is over $ 500. I have several questions ; while using

the non IS lens would a pod be needed all the time, does anyone hand hold the

non IS lens and get good results without leaning on something, Is

stabalization pumped up by manufacturer as part of their marketing to sell

these lens, I also red some posts that said non IS lens take sharper photos

what would you buy if you were making the choice.

 

This is a big purchase for me and I don't want to mess it up

 

Thank You all

Bear with me, I'm a beginer I'm in the growing stages

Rich

[mark u]

So long as you are just going to be shooting sport there is no real need for the IS lens, since you should be using fast enough shutter speeds to freeze both action and camera shake. The lens is perfectly usable hand held, although if you are going to be shooting with it for long periods you may want to have a monopod to take the weight, as it can get tiring before the bottom of the ninth or the end of the fourth quarter.

[patrickconnolly]

Hand holding a non-IS lens for action sports generally isn't an issue since you will want a sufficiently fast shutter speed (say 1/500 or faster) to freeze the action. At fast shutter speeds motion blur from lens movement is essentially non-existent.

 

I bought the non-IS 70-200, deciding to save the extra dollars and love the lens. (Although I must confess that the saved dollars were quickly expended on other gear ...)

 

You may want to invest in a monopod though should you find yourself shooting non-action events in very low light, where a lower shutter speed is required.

 

Good luck with the sports!

[jason_hall4]

Non IS does not give you sharped images unless their is a difference in the glass. IS is not hype, it works very well for what it is desighned to do. It is invaluable when and only when you are not able to hold the camera steady enough (because of hand holding or a shakey tripod) and you can not get the shutter speed fast enough to stop motion. It will provide no help to stop motion blur, only camera shake.

 

If you maybe in low light enough to matter and you don't want or rather not be tied to a tripod, IS all the way even with f2.8. If you are sure you will be pretty much in good light and you are willing to use higher ISO (up to 640 or so) then you may be able to get by without IS and handholding. Remember to hand hold at 200mm you should be no less that 1/200th shutter speed. Some say higher.

 

So if you can keep the shutter going that fast, then you can hand hold with that lens. other wise IS would be a wise investment.

 

Jason

[William Michael]

>>> I have been doing sports photography with my children and the local sports in town [. . . ] I plan on doing more and getting more involved in this activity in the future. [. . . ] I have several questions: <<<

 

>>> while using the non IS lens would a pod be needed all the time <<<

 

No, but a monopod is quite useful: I use a Manfrotto 679B, a very good investment and manages the 70 to 200 excellently, and it is not expensive.

 

>>> does anyone hand hold the non IS lens and get good results without leaning on something <<<

 

Yes, and with the x1.4MkII and the x2.0MkII extenders, provided I have the light for the shutter speed. The lens by itself I am comfortable to 1/160 sec at 200mm: I have successfully squeezed off 1/80 sec, but that was more luck and some skill, I think.

 

I can comfortably carry and work with the lens and a 20D for six to eight hours, but we all have differing capacity in this regard.

 

 

 

>>> Is stabalization pumped up by manufacturer as part of their marketing to sell these lens <<<

 

 

IMO, No. It is a marvellous tool.

 

 

>>> I also (read) some posts that said non IS lens take sharper photos <<<

 

 

Well I think these posts might have been comparing apples to oranges: or one could argue that the more gizmos and glass the less sharp, but the four 70 to 200 L series are pretty sharp for a x3 zoom at F2.8 and F4 max apertures. In a practical world you will do fine getting either regarding sharpness

 

Obviously prime lenses will be sharper, all else being equal.

 

 

>>> what would you buy if you were making the choice. <<<

 

 

If you are to be using the lens EXCLUSIVELY for sports action: the NON IS F2.8L.

 

 

If in any way you think you will be shooting low light fairly static subjects, (one example is for wedding or portrait use) then get the IS version.

 

 

I did make the choice and got the NON IS version: I used it 95% for sport, I have not regretted not have the IS capacity, but I reiterate: If you are going to use the lens for purposes similar to the portrait work I described above, you must get the IS version.

 

WW

[tim_miller7]

I have a couple of IS lenses and the same 70-200/2.8 non IS which I use to shoot gymnastics indoor under terrible lighting and I have found that I almost never shoot slower than 1/200 (at 2.8 and 1600 ISO) and it actually is closer to 1/320 and faster on a 30D body. I find that I can not stop action with a shutter speed any slower than that where I would expect IS to really help.

 

My other lenses with the IS are great, especially considering they are 4.0-5.6 and the shutter speed is pretty slow indoors. I have borrowed a 70-200/2.8 IS and couldn't really tell the difference, but I also wasn't shooting anything less than the above mentioned speeds. I needed to know for fact whether I really needed the IS or not. I dont.

 

I guess, as others have mentioned, if you need to stop the action, IS doesn't help, but if you shooting static objects in low light, without a tripod, IS is better than non IS.

 

Good luck.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I guess, as others have mentioned, if you need to stop the action, IS doesn't help

</i><P>

 

This is strongly dependent on focal length. For a big telephoto, the shutter speed to stop a

given action is the same as if you are shooting with a shorter lens, but the shutter speed

necessary to stop camera shake is higher. Using your example, 1/320 might be sufficient to

counteract camera shake on a 70-200, but it certainly is not for a 500 or 600 mm. So, just

because one is shooting rapid action doesn't necessarily eliminate the utility of IS.

[richard_pannone]

Guys,

 

I'm taking it all in keep coming. I have one other question when i asked a friend of mine who is a photographer he said that the image stabalization will equate to a couple more f/stops.

 

I don't really understand this can someone expand on this ?

[mark_chappell]

<I>I don't really understand this can someone expand on this ?</i><P>

 

This refers specifically to the reduction of camera shake, *** NOT *** to the light-

gathering ability of the lens. Basically it means the amount of camera shake is reduced to

roughly equivalent to what you'd get with an unstabilized lens shooting two f-stops faster

(i.e,, at 1/4 the exposure time). So with an IS lens, exposing at 1/60 sec would yield as

much camera shake-induced blur as if you shot at 1/250 without stabilization.<P>

 

On the newest IS lenses, the claim is for up to 4 stops worth -- in the above example,

shooting at 1/15 with IS would be the same as 1/250 without. But again, this ONLY refers

to camera shake.

[William Michael]

>>> So, just because one is shooting rapid action doesn't necessarily eliminate the utility of IS. <<< MC

 

Yes.

 

It is important to separate that: `IS does not stop subject motion` from the concept that IS is completely useless for sport, or thing like that.

 

As outlined the same consideration when using the extenders on the 70 to 200.

 

Also IS has a use when panning at a slow(er) shutter speed for fast action sports eg skiing, it allows the vertical camera shake to be reduced or eliminated thus keeping the visual effect enhancing movement throughout the subject`s path.

 

WW

[colinsouthern]

In my opinion the bottom line is you'll get better results with the IS version.

[Marvin]

When I'm using my 100-400mm IS and when I don't want to schlep my tripod and when I can anticipate that there might be a surface to lean on I LOVE "The Pod" (http://www.thepod.ca/).

I think that this small bean bag, which attaches to the bottom of the camera, is one of the best (and cheapest) accessory that I own.

[bob_osullivan]

IS is no help with moving subjects. If the sports are outdoors and in daylight you probably don't need F2.8 either. You could get by with a F4 which is quite a bit smaller and cheaper. However, your needs may change in the future and if you start shooting stationary subjects in low light then you'll wish you had gotten the IS version.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Obviously prime lenses will be sharper, all else being equal.

 

I recently tested a friend's 135/2 at f2.0 and f/2.8 against my 70-200/2.8 IS at 135/2.8. We shot about 100 pictures (two photographers - him and me - two bodies - my 1D and his 1D Mk II - various distances and subjects) and looked at 100% crops. Strangely, no significant difference was found. In the end I decided not to purchase it.

 

I don't know what was not equal...

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[William Michael]

>>> I don't know what was not equal... <<<

 

Well you obviously used the zoom and are the better photographer: thus all else was not equal. This is the only logical conclusion.

 

WW

[yakim_peled1]

We tried to keep all other things as constant as possible in each session i.e. same distance, same subject etc. The only thing changed in each session was the lens and aperture (if it was the 135/2). One session was shot with my camera, the other with his. One session was shot by me, the other by him. Thus, as much as I'd like to get endorse your compliment (and I thank you for that), I do not think it is relevant in this case.

 

I must stress that some of the pictures from the 135/2 were indeed spectacular (while all other were simply very good). Thing is, as much as we tried to replicate them, we failed. They seemed to appear randomly and in very small number. When considering the price of the 135/2 and the fact that it was suppose to be an addition to my 70-200/2.8 and not a replacement, I decided to make do with the very good.

 

 

 

 

BTW, I have 17 years of photographic experience while he has 12. Thus, none of us is a novice. The whole thing continues to puzzle me.

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[chris_laudermilk]

It's been pretty well hashed over already, but I'll contribute my experiences. I've used several copies of the 70-200/2.8L IS over the past few years, and have recently added the non-IS version to my bag. The non-IS lens is noticeably sharper than the IS ones, which I found surprising; I expected the additional element to have an unnoticeable effect, guess I was wrong. However, all the lenses are excellent.

 

The advantage of IS comes in with hand-holding at under the 1/focal length rule of thumb shutter speed. Then it helps reduce camera shake blur in the image; the 2 stops indicated how far you can go under that rule--so the 70-200 at 200mm would normally need to be 1/200 or better, but with IS you can drop to about 1/50. This does not affect how moving subjects are captured--they will still be blurred, thus the caveat about limited usefulness with sports or action.

 

If you can get a monopod, I would do so. It doesn't reduce mobility by much and helps stability a lot. It also helps with fatigue over a long shooting day.

[William Michael]

>>> The whole thing continues to puzzle me. <<<

 

Hi Yakim

 

Well my comment was a compliment, an expression of puzzlement, but mostly wry humour (I should have run of those smiley faces up the flagpole, I think).

 

But I did know your post was quite serious (factual) so I was laughing at the outcome: Me to is puzzled.

 

I would have bet the 135L would be better, not cream the zoom, but have subtle differences especially at F2, and at the edges.

 

I want a 135L, and will still buy one: for the F2. When I do I will compare for myself.

 

Thanks for sharing the experience.

 

WW