Do I need IS for a 70-200 f/2.8 for my intended use?

[mike_coughlin]

I am looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the IS models - $500

difference makes me wonder if I really need the IS. I plan on using

the zoom to capture my kids running and playing in daylight mostly,

and for outdoor candid portrait type shots.

 

Does the f-stop stay at 2.8 at 200mm? Will I get a sharper picture

by slightly decreasing the aperture at either the 70 or 200 range,

and do I really need Image Stabilization and why?

 

Thanks

[carl smith]

The lens is a 70-200 2.8, meaning the aperture stays constant. You will almost always get a sharper picture by closing a lens down 2 stops or so. But is it necessary? not with all lenses, some perform very well wide open, as do these lenses.

 

Do you need IS? If you're using flash, or shooting in bright light and if you don't need to use slow shutter speeds much, then I'd say it's probably not worth the difference in cost. I have the 70-200 2.8L from before the IS version came out and I really have no need or burning to desire to switch. Yeah, I'd like to have it but I'm good with what I have.

[emaxxman]

The max aperture is 2.8 throughout the zoom range. Alot of people used the non-IS lens with great success when IS wasn't available. Bright light and/or fast film (hell, even ISO 100 at f/2.8) should be more than sufficient to get action stopping and sharp images of kids.

 

I think the IS comes in handy when you're using slow film, shooting in very dim light, or shooting from a moving platform (i.e. boat). Your situations don't fit any of this. Of course, for me, dim light and/or slow film always means that I want to use my tripod.

 

For that extra $500, you can get yourself a nice carbon fiber tripod if you don't already have one.

[wildpicture]

Mike, I don't think you'll really need the IS on this lens. Certainly not when you're trying to get pictures of your kids running and playing. IS makes a difference of two to three stops with regards to camera shake. Meaning you could photograph at 200mm with a shutterspeed of about 1/60th to maybe 1/30th, while still handholding the lens instead of using a tripod.

 

But IS does NOT stop subject movement! So, if you are trying to get a shot of your kids running around, you will require a shutter speed of about 1/250th anyhow to freeze their movement.

 

I have the "old" 70-200/2.8L without the IS and have never needed it. I do have some other (longer) lenses, where IS can be very handy (100-400 and 500) to prevent camera shake at slow shutterspeeds.

 

Regards,

Hans

[lee_shively]

I agree, IS would be nice to have but the 70-200/2.8 is very nice to have in its own right. I also have the pre-IS lens and love it. For the purposes you stated, I like the idea of buying a good tripod and head for the $500 you saved.

[andrew_mackie1]

I have the pre-IS as well and love it, but IS sure would have helped me yesterday evening when I was balancing my lens against any stable object I could find. I'm not about to go out and buy the IS now but if I had the choice at purchase time then I would have.

[stephen_feingold]

Hi Mike,

 

The IS is nice to have for hand held shooting in low light.

However, the IS lens is significantly heavier than the non IS.

If you are slight of build this extra weight can take an unpleasant toll for extended hand held shooting.

You need to heft them yourself to decide.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

I'm going to show my ignorance here. Does the 70-200 IS have mode 2 for panning, like the 300 f/4 IS? If so, it would come in handy for panning shots of your kids running and playing (sharp kid, blurred background) Now is the ability to take better panned shots worth $500? your call.

[beauh44]

>Does the 70-200 IS have mode 2 for panning

 

Yes. And the "new" 70-200mm IS is just an amazing piece of glass as well as technology. The hand-held shots I've gotten are just incredible - even all the way out at 200mm. I've shot 1/2 second hand-held exposures (very carefully!) that came out tack-sharp. The images from this lens easily rival, if not surpass, my Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. Just my .02 worth... best wishes!

 

beau :)