Image stabilizer question

[george_gan1]

<p>I'm having trouble deciding on wether to purchase a Canon 70-200mm EF 2.8 USM, that I want to use for indoor sports family gatherings outdoor landscapes ect.<br>

My problem is that I don't know if I need to get the version that has the image stabilizer.I use a Canon 50d.<br>

Any help would be greatly appreciated.</p>

 

[bob_king2]

<p>I have the IS version of this lens and for me IS is invaluable. It makes the lens more versatile. I use it on both a 40D and a 5DII. I recently shot a live performance using available light with a 5DII at ISO 3200 with relatively slow shutter speeds, even with subject movement and got quite sharp results. The lens has a panning IS mode which I find very useful. My opinion is - if you can afford it, get the IS version.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>I second Bob. I have one and the IS is invaluable. You will be able to pull off low shuter speed shots much more often and easier with the IS version.</p>

<p>If you shoot alot of things where light is plentiful, the IS wont do any good as high shutter speed will freeze everything. I find anything indoors can benifit from IS. If you can afford it, you'll be glad you did.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>The value of IS is in handholding the lens. If you regularly handhold in low light then it will help a lot. If you shoot from a tripod, you won't need it. Keep in mind the IS version is heavier, so it's a little more weight to carry around. I would say that if money and weight were not an issue, then go for the IS version. As Bob mentioned above, it's more versatile.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em>"I want to use for indoor sports </em><strong><em>family gatherings</em></strong><em> </em><strong><em>outdoor landscapes</em></strong><em> ect.</em><br /><em>My problem is that I don't know if I need to get the version that has the image stabilizer."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Get the IS version - very few people use that lens exclusively in situations where the IS would not be useful - and you have already mentioned two where the IS could come in handy for you, often.</p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[authoritee]

<p>Just like everyone else has mentioned, if you can afford the IS, get it. I own a copy of it and I must say that the IS has helped me take some excellent shots in lowlight situations, similar to the performance Bob mentioned.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>George, I concur with the advice that's been given. As a general rule of thumb, IS is more useful on longer lenses than on shorter ones if you're going to be handholding. For example, I've obtained sharp images with my 24-105/4 at 105mm handheld indoors at a shutter speed of 1/15. Such results would not have been obtainable without IS.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>I was just thinking what Mark said when I posted earlier. Before I bought the 24-70 f2.8L, I bought the 24-105 f4L IS for the reach and IS. Later returned it and bought the 24-70 cause F4 wasnt fast enought to freeze action. The IS freezes camera shake only...remember that. But was just thinking about the day I snagged a 105mm shot indoors at 1/15th. Thats funny cause I never forget that when using IS now and its funny someone else remembered the exact thing.</p>

<p>Thats why any chance I get where I think Canon may be reading, I do this, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add IS to the 24-70 f2.8L please. I really need it at 70mm cause its a heavy lens. Or please make the 24-105 an f2.8 lens with the IS. Either will work. I swear I'd pay $2000 for it today.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>IS is worth every penny, so long as you remember that IS works only on the <em>user</em> side of the camera. That is, it will help eliminate or reduce movement made by you and the camera. It does nothing at all to stop or improve movement in the world beyond the lens.<br /> It means you can get hand-held pictures of lovely image blur from movement by the players, but it will not make the players sharper, except insofar as the camera is jiggled.</p>

<p>That said, I would find the money for the IS version, somehow. It really effectively adds a couple of stops to the lens, again, on your end. If you choose your "high point of action" carefully, the way sports photogs had to in the old slow film days, you can get spectacular results with it.</p>

[swede_spoltore]

<p>I agree that if you can afford it - buy the 70-200 f:2.8 IS. If you can't afford it and want the IS - you might consider the 70-200 f:4 IS which is about $500 less.</p>

[alcb1310]

<p>I agree that if you con afford it buy the IS version of the lens. I bought the 75-300 without the IS feature and I have missed a lot of nice shots because there was not enough light and the shutter speed wasn't fast enough to freeze the movement made by me. After that I said to my self do not ever buy again a tele lens without IS</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>IS = $$$ If you have the money, why wouldn't you?</p>