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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by n, Oct 27, 2004.

  1. n

    n Guest

    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.
     
    n, Oct 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. n

    PhotoMan Guest

    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
     
    PhotoMan, Oct 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. n

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >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.
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 27, 2004
    #3
  4. n

    MarkH Guest

    (n) wrote in
    news::

    > 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"
     
    MarkH, Oct 28, 2004
    #4
  5. n

    Eric Gill Guest

    (n) wrote in
    news::

    > 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!"
     
    Eric Gill, Oct 28, 2004
    #5
  6. n

    Mark M Guest

    "n" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Mark M, Oct 28, 2004
    #6
  7. n

    jean Guest

    "n" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > 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
     
    jean, Oct 28, 2004
    #7
  8. n

    n Guest

    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.



    (n) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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.
     
    n, Oct 28, 2004
    #8
  9. n

    Rudi Cheow Guest

    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
     
    Rudi Cheow, Oct 28, 2004
    #9
  10. n

    n Guest

    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...
     
    n, Oct 29, 2004
    #10
  11. n

    Mark M Guest

    "n" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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...


    16-35 2.8 L
    28-135 IS (the least impressive of the three in terms of sharpness, but this
    lens is very versatile in a pinch, and is usually mounted on-camera for
    general use).

    The rest of my "always carried kit" includes 550EX flash, Timer remote,
    polarizer filter (77mm--fits both the wide and the tele), and also a 1.4x
    extender for occasional use on the 70-200...plus teh few other ods and ends
    that accompany everyone in their bag...

    -Mark
     
    Mark M, Oct 29, 2004
    #11
  12. n

    n Guest

    It turns out if i do a part exchange, old for old with my current
    canon 70-200mm f2.8 for one with IS i would have to pay an extra
    *$800*!!!
    I think i will stick with what i have.

    Does anybody know where i could get a better deal on a trade in?



    (n) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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.
     
    n, Oct 29, 2004
    #12
  13. n

    Mark M Guest

    "n" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It turns out if i do a part exchange, old for old with my current
    > canon 70-200mm f2.8 for one with IS i would have to pay an extra
    > *$800*!!!
    > I think i will stick with what i have.
    >
    > Does anybody know where i could get a better deal on a trade in?


    Forget the trade-in route!
    Sell it on e-bay.
    They will pay big $$ there...often over the price of new!
    Amazing, really.
     
    Mark M, Oct 30, 2004
    #13
  14. n

    n Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote in message news:<w7Cgd.192316$a85.116187@fed1read04>...
    > "n" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > It turns out if i do a part exchange, old for old with my current
    > > canon 70-200mm f2.8 for one with IS i would have to pay an extra
    > > *$800*!!!
    > > I think i will stick with what i have.
    > >
    > > Does anybody know where i could get a better deal on a trade in?

    >
    > Forget the trade-in route!
    > Sell it on e-bay.
    > They will pay big $$ there...often over the price of new!
    > Amazing, really.


    !! Wow!
    I will have to look into that!
    My reference point for new prices is froogle.
    Does anybody have a better price comparison engine than this?
    Perhaps there is one that just focuses on camera equipment...?
     
    n, Oct 31, 2004
    #14
  15. n

    Nick Beard Guest

    Nick Beard, Oct 31, 2004
    #15
  16. >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


    The IS is without a doubt worth the extra money. I can take sharp
    pictures at 300mm at 1/60. No other lens will let you do that.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 3, 2004
    #16
  17. >28-135 IS (the least impressive of the three in terms of sharpness, but this
    >lens is very versatile in a pinch, and is usually mounted on-camera for
    >general use).


    This is my favorite general purpose lens, the one I keep on the
    camera, and the one I take when I can only take one lens. On the
    DRebel it's not really wide enough to be the only lens, but add a nice
    prime wide angle and you're set.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 3, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <jf3sd.11$>,
    (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

    > >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

    >
    > The IS is without a doubt worth the extra money. I can take sharp
    > pictures at 300mm at 1/60. No other lens will let you do that.
    >
    > -Joel


    The 70-300 DO IS is even good for 1/10 sec @ 300mm. I've used it at
    outdoor night performances totally handheld. Even 1/4 sec @ 300mm has
    no more than 1 pixel of blur if you hold really still. Running the IS
    while waiting a couple seconds for your aim to steady runs down the
    batteries in a hurry, though.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 4, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rod Bruno

    FS : Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM / Canon 2.X II Autofocus

    Rod Bruno, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    459
  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens

    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    616
    John McWilliams
    Feb 5, 2005
  3. Dean S. Lautermilch

    Image: D2X, SB800 & 70-200mm

    Dean S. Lautermilch, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    456
    ASAAR
    Jul 23, 2005
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    384
    Sweetpea
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page