«

thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy tripod shutter
Thanks for any suggestions
Mark

emski wrote:
> thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
> different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy tripod shutter
> Thanks for any suggestions
> Mark


Definitely get the IS version. You'll have more sharp pictures. I like
both 70-200/4 (no IS) and 300/4 IS but almost every shot from the 300/4,
even with 1.4x extender, is much better than 70-200 at 200.

emski wrote:

> thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
> different is almost $ 500

If you can afford it, get the IS lens. It really does make a difference.

"emski" <> wrote in
newseh_d.21718$. com:

> thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or
> not IS different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy
> tripod shutter Thanks for any suggestions

I bought the Sigma version - great price and the lens is pretty much
identical with the exception of IS. With it, I get great tripod-mounted
portraiture and excellent shots of anything in good strong light.

Low light makes things a challenge. Hand-holding below 1/80 of a sec near
the high end of the zoom is very iffy, especially in something like a
concert environment where you're fighting a crowd of drunks and the
musicians are moving a lot.

I shoulda bought the Canon IS. It makes that lens mucho more flexible.

If you can afford it - go for the IS. My wife has stopped using ALL our
other lenses since she got an IS lens - it really dos replace a tripod in
most moderate light situations - shade etc. There are people that will
complain that IS will not stop blurring from subject movement - which is
sort of like saying that brakes will not keep your car from using gas.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"emski" <> wrote in message
newseh_d.21718$. com...
> thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
> different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy tripod shutter
> Thanks for any suggestions
> Mark
>
>
>

I just sold a 100~300 non IS and ordered a 70~200 IS lens. I had an IS lens
last year and I bought the non IS with the insurance after it was stolen. I
have about 400 sharp photos I took with the original lens and about 10 I
took with the non IS replacement. Absolutely worth every cent of the extra
price for Image stabalisation. Wouldn't be without it once you've
experienced the difference.


"emski" <> wrote in message
newseh_d.21718$. com...
> thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
> different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy tripod shutter
> Thanks for any suggestions
> Mark
>
>
>

>thinking about 70-200 L maybe someone out there with opinion IS or not IS
>different is almost $ 500 another thing I'm not a crazy tripod shutter

It depends what you take pictures of. If you only take pictures of
things that move quickly, the IS will do you almost no good. But if
you take pictures of things that stand still, you'll love the IS. (If
you take pictures in dark settings of things that stand still, IS is
more important that L glass.)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <NPC_d.19551$_>, says...
>
> It depends what you take pictures of. If you only take pictures of
> things that move quickly, the IS will do you almost no good.

Unless you've got the type 2 IS, which stabilizes panning motion - very
handy for fast-moving subjects.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

I read that the IS version is not good for fast action. I am looking for a
fast lens to capture soccer action (day and night), volleyball (indoors) and
wildlife (probably with a 1.4x or 2x converter). Is the IS version more
suitable than the non-IS for all those or do I need to buy more than one
lens to satisfy my requirements?

"Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
news:.. .
> In article <NPC_d.19551$_>, says...
> >
> > It depends what you take pictures of. If you only take pictures of
> > things that move quickly, the IS will do you almost no good.
>
> Unless you've got the type 2 IS, which stabilizes panning motion - very
> handy for fast-moving subjects.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

> If you can afford it, get the IS lens. It really does make a difference.
thanks everybody for respond I will go with IS
--
cheers ) emski