A question for those with the 70-200/2.8 (non-IS)...

[sanjay_chugh1]

Having recently upgraded to the 40D from the 20D, I am contemplating upgrading

my lenses with the rebate in Canada on right now.

 

I've already put my 17-85 on sale (hopefully it won't be too long before it is

sold) and am purchasing the 17-55.

 

What I am debating is if I should sell my 70-300/f4-5.6 IS for the 70-200/f2.8

without the IS. I can add the Teleconverter down the road to get the same range

as I have now but I can't decide how much I will miss not having the IS.

 

So for anyone that has been in a similar situation where you moved from an IS

lens to a non-IS lens, how much did you miss not having the IS?

 

I realize the 70-200 is much bigger and heavier and that is also going through

my mind. The places I would use this lens would be Indian classical music

concerts where I previously was using my Tamron 28-75. My 10 year old son's

indoor basketball games. Next year in the spring my kids outdoor soccer games

and their dance recitals. Probably during other activities such as

skating/swimming/skiing.

 

I am just getting stuck on the IS issue, and I can't afford/justify the 70-200 IS.

 

I would consider the 70-200/f4 IS but the f4 will be too slow for indoor sports,

is that not correct.

 

Thanks,

 

-- Sanjay

[frolickingbits]

But it! I just got the 70-200 f2.8 after shooting weddings, sports and events for several years with nothing longer than a 135mm on a crop frame body. The constant f2.8 is great, and with the high ISO capabilities of the 40D, you should be set with just about any sport you could imagine. One word of warning-it is a very heavy lens-you might want to start working out before buying it :)

[d12monkey]

Unless you are planning on shooting your son's indoor basketball games on a tripod/(monopod if you have really steady hands) then you will definitely miss the IS. I'd say try shooting some handheld shots with your 70-300 with the IS turned on and then with the IS turn off in a similar venue. I personally have the 70-200/F2.8 IS, picked it up on adorama for about $1400 and have never looked back.

 

My recommendation if you can spend the extra $ you won't regret it on this lens especially if you plan on shooting indoors.

[elliot1]

IS is not very useful with a moving target. I have several lenses with the feature and generally have it turned off. The only time it is really useful is when you are shooting stationary subjects/objects in low light or at the long end of the lens at a slow shutter speed.

 

I am close to buying the same lens and will be getting the non-IS version. Others won't buy it without. If you find you like it and used it a lot on your 70-300, you may want to reconsider the small additional investment.

[sanjay_chugh1]

Thanks. I understand the pros and cons of IS vs faster lens etc.

 

That's why I was wondering if anyone else that had made a similar move from a very good but cheaper lens with IS to a better but more expensive lens without IS had to say.

 

In the end I guess I have to answer my question myself and that is just how much will I miss having the IS. But I thought it might help to hear others that made this type of a move had to say.

 

The other thing I guess is from what I gather is to really think about the weight of the lens. I am indeed a small (5'4") and light (105 lbs currently) person and that might indeed be more of a concern then I am letting myself believe.

 

Thanks,

 

-- Sanjay

[tim_miller7]

I have the lens and body you are referring to and often shoot gymnastics in a poor light, where stop action is very important. Typically I am at 1/250 to 1/320, F2.8, and 1600 ISO are needed to getting something reasonable. As for those who say you need the IS, I am not convinced, as I have NEVER taken a pictures indoors of action based subjects at anything slower than the above mentioned speeds. Even the awards ceremony I shoot at 1/125 on a monopod, and I still get motion blur and softness which IS didnt correct.

 

I struggled with the IS vs Non-IS question until I borrowed an IS copy of the 70-200,2.8 and didn't see much of a difference. I am very satisfied with my choice, but this wasnt an IS vs. Non-IS. The 70-200 is my favorite lens in the gym. Buy it!

[bueh]

Or get used gear and buy two lenses, i.e., the EF 70-200mm f/4 L <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> (if that's what you want) and a fantastic 200mmm f/2.8 L <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> prime (sans <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr>) for indoor sports. Or forget about the zoom and get an 85mm f/1.8 <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> or 100mm f/2 <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> instead to have the wider end covered. But for many subjects, especially indoors, <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> is like magic and you will definitively miss it (though not when shooting moving subjects). Unfortunately, almost all primes lack it, but then again, they are lighter, faster and cheaper, which makes up for it a bit.

[alan_myers]

I have and use the 70-200/2.8 I.S. There are shots I can do (incl. many moving subjects, sports, wildlife, among other things) with this lens that I simply could not do without I.S. Wouldn't want to be without it!

[tim_miller7]

Alan,

 

Could I trouble you for a few examples of what you are shooting where IS makes the difference and at what shutter speed? Pictures or descriptions - whatever is easiest.

 

Thanks.

[jose_castro1]

I just shot a basketball game a few hours ago in low light. Mostly took ones where the

players were about to take their shots. The IS helped - more and more as the game went on

and the arms were starting to feel the weight. I'd say if you're used to having it, you'd miss

it. But, IS or non-IS, the move from f4-5.6 to f2.8 should be gratifying enough.

[chris_laudermilk]

Before purchasing my own lens, I borrowed rented 70-200/2.8IS lenses for a while. Now that I have the non-IS lens I don't miss the IS at all. I shoot mainly dance stage shows, so low light with quick movement--IS is of no help there. What you are planning on using the lens for, I'd say save the money. Oh, and I cannot tell any weight difference between them, both f2.8 lenses are heavy.

[mendel_leisk]

I think you're giving your internal accountant too much say in your decisions. It seems whenever you purchase a lens, one has to be sold. And you've deemed IS version of the 70-200 out of reach. Both of these strategies are causing you sweat. I'd duct tape that guy for a bit, and have a fresh think on the whole picture.

 

My 2 cents:

 

Don't sell any of your current lens. Forget about the 17-55 purchase. Get the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

[sanjay_chugh1]

Well, I just came back from the camera shop and took a look at the 70-200/f2.8 IS and the 70-200/f4 IS.

 

As soon as I lifted the 2.8 I knew the weight was going to be an issue for small little me. I tried it for about 5 minutes and already my hands and arms were tiring. So for me personally, if I am using this lens I would almost certainly want to pack a monopod or something.

 

I am starting to think that for me this just isn't the answer and maybe I will just stick with the 70-300/f4-5.6 for now. I will just have to learn to be patient and spend time experimenting and try to figure out what it is that I am missing with my current lineup of lenses for my uses.

 

-- Sanjay

[sanjay_chugh1]

Hi Mendel,

 

I appreciate the thought and wish I could do that.

But sometimes we do have to listen to that internal accountant. Otherwise I might be saying this to my kids:

 

"Hello my children. Checkout this uber expensive lens I got so I can take pictures during you activities. Oh wait, now I don't have money leftover to pay for your basketball, piano lessons...".

 

As for the 17-55 I will have to get that as it will be my lens 80% or more of the time and is supposed to be quite good.

[jason_hall4]

Personally, I would rather have the 70-300 with IS than a 70-200 with out it. Unless you are making money on those shots the 70-300 will produce great images. If you want the speed of f2.8 at 200mm then consider the 200mm f2.8L prime lens for about $600.00 USD and add it to the 70-300 IS lens. Best of both worlds there and the prime would give even better quality!

 

Jason

[lee_shively]

IS or not, I really have a dislike for slow lenses. Your 70-300/4-5.6 is also not in the same optical league as any of the 70-200L lenses. While the f/2.8 zooms are heavier and harder to carry around and handle, that quickly becomes secondary to the improvement in utility and optical quality you will obtain.

 

What are the exposures in the places where you normally shoot? I dare say your IS lens doesn't offer any help when shooting your children's sporting events and dance recitals. Since you haven't been using your IS lens for the concerts, it apparently is unnecessary for that either.

 

My suggestion is to buy a nice, sturdy monopod with a small ballhead and the EF 70-200/2.8L without IS. It will take the weight off your arms and shoulders and not limit your mobility to any great degree. I believe a monopod will alleviate most of your problems in handling the heavy lens and you will greatly benefit from the improved optical performance.

[terry_smith2]

I replaced my Canon 28-135 IS with a Tamron 28-105/2.8 and never looked back. The Tamron was a big improvement in every way except for the slow AF. I also have a 70-200/2.8 L non IS that I bought new in 1995. It's great, nothing else is close.

[jeffreyfortuna]

I owned the 70-300 for about a year and replaced it with the 70-200 f4 non IS and have been very happy. I can get away with the f4 because most of the things I shoot are sailing and waterskiing with plenty of light. I've borrowed and rented both of the f2.8 versions of the 70-200 and can now tell you that any four of the 70-200 L lenses from canon have much better sharpness and contrast than the 70-300.

 

Jeffrey

[William Michael]

I have used IS lenses.

 

I bought the 70 to 200F2.8L (deciding against the IS) to cover sports events, particularly elite swimming and club hockey and club football.

 

The swimming is always inside, hockey football are outside.

 

The decision was easy, and I do not know of any of pro at the swimming meets who turns the IS on, if it is available to them: (the Association`s official photographer uses a non IS version also).

 

The reasons I decided against the IS version are:

 

1. Weight

 

2. Cost

 

3. Lack of use

 

Note 2 & 3 form one reason: value for money FOR MY APPLICATION.

 

What concerns me about the OP is this sentence:

 

>>> The places I would use this lens would be Indian classical music concerts <<<

 

I note that Lee Shively picked upon this point also, and took the OP as implying that IS was not an issue as presently, the outcomes using the Tamron, are successful.

 

I do not share that interpretation of the OP, and suggest that there might be dissatisfaction with the Tamron`s performance (or rather the outcomes), and perhaps using a longer zoom the problems will be exacerbated and IS will be required.

 

But that is guessometry about interpretation on both our parts, suffice to say the attention has been draw to this particular issue.

 

So with my interpretation, the lens is NOT going to be for specific sports work ONLY, where, for example > 1/400 sec shutter speeds will always be necessary to freeze motion.

 

In other words, it WILL in fact be an `all rounder`, as a telephoto zoom.

 

It is because of this I would recommend that the IS will be missed.

 

Also, a mono pod is really going to be your friend, and really easy to work with ALL DAY.

 

You should go back to the camera store and try the lens on a pod for a while: it is a whole different ball game.

 

I echo Lee Shively`s comment: ` IS or not, I really have a dislike for slow lenses`. And add: I really dislike variable aperture zoom lenses.

 

I really think it comes down to the application and how sure one is about the NON variance of that application.

 

I was quite sure about my application and have been very happy with my choice.

 

One note, I covered some snowboarding championships a few months ago, and I did find that, in panning I could have captured better `artistic shots` more often, if I had owned an IS.

 

For one day out of five I had access to an IS version for comparison with my 70 to 200.

 

Panning fast sports, like skiing, IS can be utilized.

 

WW

[david_amberson1]

To Tim Miller and Elliot Berstein> I dont know why there are people that say IS doesnt work in sports. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and use it every Friday night in Mode 2 for panning and its great. It helps tremendously with up and down shake while panning. In Mode 1 it easily helps with Award Cerimonys. 1/125 is all you need for a walking person and that can be achieved with an IS lens hand held. I dare you to try and hand hold that lens at 200mm at 1/125 without shake. Wont happen. I can though, because I have IS. I had the 70-300 IS and it wont cut action unless outside under sun. F4 at best is too slow for basketball, volley ball or even an award cerimony. Most use a 85mm 1.8 lens for basketball. Yes you could turn the ISO up, but the noise and loss of detail isnt a good trade off. I spent the extra $300-400 and bought the IS version and now, I can always shoot at a little lower ISO and get a better shot. I bought mine brand new for $1500. Its worth it. Why else would all the Pro Sports guys like Peter Miller of SI use exclusive IS lenses. Because it works. Just because some of you guys cant get it to work for you, doesnt mean it absolutly wont work for anyone else.

 

Botton line: The 2.8 will give the shutter speed needed for action and the IS will give good hand held at low shutter speeds.

 

Rocket Science: Put those 2 together and what do you get. A good action stopping, hand holdable lens for most any application. You will get used to the weight eventually.

 

Sandjay: I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL MISS IT! I went from a 70-300 IS, to a Sigma 70-200 2.8(Non IS) and you see where I went back to. I wasted my money. I came back to Canon and IS and could have saved myself some money.

[William Michael]

To David Amberson:

 

I think it is very important to articulate specifically exactly what sports shooting scenarios IS can be of use.

 

And it is important to note that some colleagues speak (and think) in generalizations; others in specifics, (and others drop misinformation).

 

I also think mixing generalizations, whilst attempting to make points upon specifics is dangerous:

 

 

>>> I dare you to try and hand hold that lens at 200mm at 1/125 without shake. Wont happen. <<< (DA) (op cit)

 

 

I can and do. And I get about 80% to 85% success rate: and I measure it accurately, post shoot.

 

 

A silly point perhaps, but just to highlight it. :)

 

 

However, the object is to assist the OP, and I agree with your bottom line and your Rocket Science:

 

 

>>> Bottom line: The 2.8 will give the shutter speed needed for action and the IS will give good hand held at low shutter speeds.

 

Rocket Science: Put those 2 together and what do you get. A good action stopping, hand holdable lens for most any application. <<< (DA) (op cit)

 

 

Cheers.

 

 

WW

[mendel_leisk]

Sanjay, the 17-85 is no slouch. I know it has it's shortcomings, and doesn't have a low, constant max aperture, but it's a very good range, and excellent IS. It's funny, I keep buying 17-85's for relatives, never myself. 3 so far. Sticking with the 17-85 instead of upgrading to the 17-55 will buy a few piano lessons. I may get flamed for this, but I think the 17-55 is pretty pricey for EF-s. And, it reduces your telephoto. And it's wide open light fall-off is pretty sad.

 

And then you've freed up to buy the big white with IS ;) You won't regret it, the lens is a delight.

 

Off-topic, I took about 9 years of piano lessons, and I was pathetic. It taught me a little theory, but was a phenominal waste of money. Years later I got a digital piano, started tinkering, playing by ear, much more rewarding approach.

[medina photography cherry]

The answer for you can be determined only by you- with that said, I have the 70-200 2.8 non is. This is my primary lens, I even use it for group shots of 25 or more people (as long as I have the room to move back) it is a fantasticly sharp lens, I love it for portraits of couples and or singles. I just recently got the 1.4 MK II tele extender and that gives my 280mm @f4- seems to only focus with my 40D though- not even with my 1D MKII. Just wanted to add my experience with this lens.

[sanjay_chugh1]

Thanks for all the replies.

I've thought about it a lot and decided that I would definitely miss not having the IS. So no non-IS lens for me.

 

I am going to take my time and see what is working for me and what is not. I was at my son's BB practice yesterday and since these are young elementary children we the parents are pretty well at the sidelines or close to it. The lighting off course was dismal. I took my new 17-55 (picked it up yesterday) and my faithful 50/1.8 to the gym. With the 2.8 I had to keep the ISO always at 1600 and sometimes that wasn't enough either.

 

I also found that for my needs my 50 will be enough for a while as I ought to be able to get close pictures with it on the near side. Heck at the practice on the near side I found the 50 was too much and I needed to go wider.

 

As for the bit about the concert, that was just the first thing that came to my mind when I wrote the message. I really only get a chance if I am lucky to go to 3-5 Indian classical concerts a year. So that's not a big deal.

 

I already knew the pros and cons of IS and faster lenses.

Really I just wanted to take advantage of the current Canon rebate in Canada and so I thought a 70-200 might be a possibility. The 70-200/f4 with IS is the same price as the 70-200/f2.8 and no IS. The 2.8 with IS is several hundred dollars more and I really shouldn't be considering that at this time.

 

So I just wasn't sure if I would or not miss having the IS. I've thought about it long and hard and my answer is yes that I would miss it.

 

So the most I might do is to sell my 70-300 and buy the 70-200/f4 IS and 1.4TC at a later time.

 

Thanks for all the feedback.