Value of IS on 70-200 f/2.8 for action shots

Currently shooting a Rebel T2i with EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.

My son has started youth hockey. While the 17-55 was great if I was skating with him during practice, 55 mm leaves a bit to be desired from the stands. So, I think the 70-200 is what I need. I also think that for rink lighting, f/2.8 is needed.

Now the big if. IS seems to add about $1K or so to the price. In my application (hockey action shots...now pee-wee slow but soon to increase in speed rapidly), is the lack of IS a big deal? If not, it helps me immensely in negotiating with the CFO of my house.

Thanks in advance.

While I agree with jrw, I also think it's important to consider just how fast your shutter speeds will be, given the available light. The 1 / focal length rule is often not enough - with the high pixel densities of current sensors, often 1 / (2x FL) or 1 / (3x FL) is needed, and also, the 1.6x crop factor applies to that. So, at 200mm on APS-C, you'd likely need 1/640 s or faster for handholding. With the lighting in the gymnasium where I often take pics of my kids, 1/640 s at f/2.8 means ISOs between 6400 and 12800 - while I'm ok with that on my 1D X, I would not go that high on an APS-C sensor.

Do you require the flexibility of a zoom? You could get the 85/1.8 and the 135/2L for around the price of the 70-200/2.8L non-IS, or split the difference and get the 100/2 for much less.

Hi, I regularly shoot hockey and most of the time I keep IS switched off. I'm not sure if there's any big difference, but I believe IS can actually have negative impact on image quality if you don't let it "stabilize" for a second or so. That's not always the case in hockey so I simply switch it off. However there are lots of more uses for a 70-200 than hockey, and if you can afford the IS version I'd say get it - it's great.

As John already stated f/2.8 could be a problem in many places. My "home arena" is very well lit (due to TV broadcasting requirements) and I normally use f/2.8, 1/800, ISO3200. But at some places I prefer my 85/1.8 and still have to use slower shutter speeds. If I had to choose only one lens for a crop body it would be the 100/2. It allows for some reach from the stands (but not "enough") and can give you tight shots from rinkside. Maybe the most sensible choice would be to buy a used 100/2 - keep it if you like it and sell it without loss if you don't. Good luck!

You could try renting a 70-200 f2.8. Then see which FL you use the most. If you're always out at 200mm, you could consider the 200mm f2.8, which gives you reach and decent speed. Or the 135L, as someone mentioned. On the other hand, if your shots are spread somewhat evenly between 70 and 200, you might find a prime lens restricting. Renting one will help you decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

The general guideline to longest shutter speed for handholding a lens without camera blurring is 1/(focal length x crop factor). This is a starting point only for still and slow moving subjects and will vary quite a lot from person to person depending on steadiness of hands and technique.

---

Likewise, the general guideline for IS is 8/(FLxCF) for older three-stop IS units, or 16/(FLxCF) for newer four-stop IS units. However, this can easily drift into stable shots with massively blurry subjects.

You can always check on the used sites like KEH.com or Amazon for a version 1 and save yourself $500 to $1000. I also have heard that the newer versions of the Sigma and Tamron are nice lenses. I agree with all of the others that the IS doesn't make much difference in the action grabbing portion of shooting, but I have a differing opinion on the matter. I have the f/4 IS version of this lens and I use it for youth soccer and other things. I usually have the shutter speed at what it needs to be and don't need to worry about the IS, but I am usually outside. One thing I will say is that IS provides a steady to my shot. I believe Bryan has mentioned this in his reviews, but IS not only stops camera shake but it also helps to steady the viewfinder. I really appreciate the IS for that more that than anything. I tend to not have the steadiest hand so following the subject and keeping it in the viewfinder is a big plus.

Great posts above. I am in agreement with NeuroA and CLS in that most rinks for youth hockey wont have the best lighting, so f/2.0 is the way to go. I've used the 135 f/2 at glass level (after checking with the rink owner of course) and have had good results. You can always slap on a nifty 50 at f/2 and wait for the action to come to you as a VERY inexpensive alternative. Best wishes for many keepers, Erno

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8...abb7b771_b.jpg
The Breakout by ernogy, on Flickr

Your weakest link is the camera you are using in the situation you are shooting. The T2i while a fine general purpose camera isn't the best tool for the subject you are shooting. While the lens will help, a body that has better high ISO capabilities would be a better initial investment IMO.