Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L : Image Stability vs. No Image Stability

Reply
Thread Tools

canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L : Image Stability vs. No Image Stability

 
 
n
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2004
I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.

What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
on my 10d to get the shot i need.

What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
to get more light on the ccd...

I hope to hear from you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PhotoMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2004
n wrote:
> I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
> and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
> of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
> tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.
>
> What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
> noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
> problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
> f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
> about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
> helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
> what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
> on my 10d to get the shot i need.
>
> What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
> to get more light on the ccd...
>
> I hope to hear from you.


You've listed all the reasons for the upgrade. I did it myself, and have
never regretted the added expense.

BTW -
Canon dSLR's have CMOS sensors, not CCD's.
Joe Arnold


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2004
>I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
>and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
>of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
>tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.


You gain 2-3 stops for stopping camera shake, but NOT for subject motion.

>What do you think about the benefit of IS?


Wouldn't buy another tele-photo without it, it's great. But I'm in the same
boat as you, have the older f/2.8 L sans IS and haven't upgraded yet. (I do
have three other IS lenses though, especially the 500 f/4 L IS).

>My
>problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
>f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
>about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring.


You will STILL need to keep the shutter speed at 1/160 to freeze the subject if
it's moving, IS won't help with this.

>What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
>to get more light on the ccd...


Still need a shutter speed that keeps the subject sharp, IS only helps with
camera shake, not subject motion.
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (n) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:

> I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
> and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
> of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
> tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.
>
> What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
> noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
> problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
> f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
> about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
> helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
> what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
> on my 10d to get the shot i need.
>
> What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
> to get more light on the ccd...
>
> I hope to hear from you.


IS works!

The Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS allows you to hand hold the lens 3 stops slower
before hand shake becomes an issue.

In good light or when you need a fast shutter speed to 'freeze' a moving
subject the IS is not needed. IS is useful for stationary subjects in low
light when hand holding the camera.

For what you describe the IS version would be a useful step up. Or the 135
f2.0 for more shutter speed.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (n) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:

> What do you think about the benefit of IS?


I bought a Simga 70-200 f/2.8 to save money over the Canon, on the opinion
of someone who maintained it was fast enough the stabilization wasn't
needed.

He was wrong. Dead wrong. It's worth twice as much as the price difference.

> Is there really a
> noticeably differnece?


Yes. The optics in the Sigma are superb, but the roughly four pound long
lens means plenty of shake that even the most basic IS does away with. And
the IS in the 70-200 Canon is appreantly the best going.

> You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens?


I'll be replacing my Sigma and chalking it up as a lesson in not being too
cheap for my own good, so, my vote would be, "hell, yes!"

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2004

"n" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
> and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
> of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
> tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.
>
> What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
> noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
> problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
> f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
> about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
> helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
> what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
> on my 10d to get the shot i need.
>
> What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
> to get more light on the ccd...
>
> I hope to hear from you.


I will not buy another tele lens that is not IS.

My 70-200 2.8 IS L has become my favorite lens, and I own/use quite a few,
including 4 IS lenses. It is extremely effective for the many situations
where a tripod is not practical or possible, and is amazingly sharp and
clear--especially for a zoom, but really is just plain sharp, period. This
lens is one of three that I ALWAYS carry--no matter what. I would not
hesitate to pay the extra for IS on this lens.


 
Reply With Quote
 
jean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2004

"n" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
> and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
> of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
> tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.
>
> What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
> noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
> problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
> f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
> about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
> helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
> what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
> on my 10d to get the shot i need.
>
> What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
> to get more light on the ccd...
>
> I hope to hear from you.


IS does work, I had a Canon 75-300 with IS and replaced it with a 70-300 DO
with IS, well worth it.

Jean


 
Reply With Quote
 
n
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2004
Great to hear that there is such a consensus on this.
I will have to see what kind of deal i can find exchanging used for used.



(E-Mail Removed) (n) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day
> and they do. They said it is like being able to move 2 stops. The kind
> of shots taken are not those where you set everything up nicely with a
> tripod and have all the time in the world. The subject is moving.
>
> What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a
> noticeably differnece? You reckon it is worth upgrading the lens? My
> problem is that there is never enough light to use anything other than
> f2.8. and i don't like to use a flash. I need to keep shutter speed at
> about 160 to stop the subjects from blurring. With the low light not
> helping the autofocus and very little leeway at f2.8 i think it may be
> what i need... And i often have to have the iso at 1600 or even 3200
> on my 10d to get the shot i need.
>
> What i want is to be able to have the aperture up a couple of stops up
> to get more light on the ccd...
>
> I hope to hear from you.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rudi Cheow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2004
A couple of months ago I bought a Nikon 70-200 VR, which by all
accounts is identical to the Canon 70-200 IS in terms of optical
quality and image stabilisation effectiveness.

I was a bit skeptical about VR at first, but a friend proposed this
test:

Stick the lens on a body and max out the focal distance. This
effectively equates it to circa 300mm on a non full-frame digital body
- this means you also have all the drawbacks of increased shake
similar to a 300mm lens on a regular 35mm body. Increasing the focal
distance beyond what the IS/VR on the lens was designed to compensate
for (either by using a TC or sticking it on a digital body) is a good
test to see how good the stabilisation is.

Anyway, with the lens turned to 200(300)mm, I looked through the
viewfinder and manually focused on a small item. I then tried to hold
the item, handheld, in the middle focusing bracket in the viewfinder.
It jumped all over the place and I couldn't consistently hold it
properly to frame, let alone snap.

I turned VR on and voilla - the item suddenly remained near-enough
still in my focusing bracket and I could take multiple sharp snapshots
without issue. It really is a sight to behold.

Bottom line, echoing all comments here: VR/IS works. Period.

R
 
Reply With Quote
 
n
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2004
This
> lens is one of three that I ALWAYS carry--no matter what. I would not
> hesitate to pay the extra for IS on this lens.


I wonder what the other 2 are...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dimdows Stability & Reliabitily Fix Breaks Stability & Reliability Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 02-06-2010 07:35 PM
Website stability TCORDON ASP .Net 2 03-21-2005 04:53 PM
Relationship of "Requests in Application Queue" and ASP.NET application performance / stability Dominic ASP .Net 1 12-14-2004 04:37 AM
Semi-OT - ASP & PHP on same server/ stability of ASP on Linux Karl Groves HTML 4 07-29-2004 07:56 AM
unicode stability nos Java 2 01-20-2004 03:49 PM



Advertisments