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

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

 

I do not have the IS version. I was talking with someone the other day

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

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).

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.

Still need a shutter speed that keeps the subject sharp, IS only helps with
camera shake, not subject motion.

 

(n) wrote in

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.

 

(n) wrote in

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.

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.

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!"

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

This

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

 

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...?

 

When you have sold it on ebay for mega bucks , order your new lens from
DigitalRev from Hong Kong you will have a worldwide warranty and a lens for
which to lust after
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3848055932&tc=photo

 

What do you think about the benefit of IS? Is there really a

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

 

28-135 IS (the least impressive of the three in terms of sharpness, but this

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

 

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.