Printable View
I uploaded two football images shot with the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. This will give you a pretty good idea of what you can expect to in the daylight and the dark.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...mith_0003a.jpg
Canon 5D MKII, Canon EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, Av, 200mm, f/3.5, ISO-800, 1/640
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...mith_0079a.jpg
Canon 5D MKII, Canon EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, Tv, 200mm, f/5.6, ISO-6400, 1/800
Nice shots - That is exactly what Im looking to get especially the second shot. It appears he was clear across the field from you, not to mention dark out. Now, was that taken with or without a flash? The first shot is great in that I will be able to capture the facial expressions as well.
So, Im guessing that you think the IS is well worth the extra money? Im still not sure about it, especially if I use a monopod. I think Im leaning towards the non IS which will allow me some extra money to invest in a 2nd lens such as the 100mm I mentioned earlier.
Im so conflicted...lol, I dont want to buy the non-IS and then wish I had bought the IS. What to do, what to do????
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnman
Keep in mind that Dallasphotog's second shot is at ISO 6400, a setting that's not (directly) possible on your Rebel XS. At your maximum of ISO 1600, that same push of the shutter button would take the shot at f/2.8 instead of f/5.6, making the foreground and background out of focus further. Most lenses aren't as good optically when they're shot with aperture wide open, so some optical gremlins might show up at f/2.8 (this particular lens is rather good wide open, but it's not a match for the "white primes"). Shooting at f/2.8 may also mean that focus errors become more apparent in more of your shots. If you wanted f/5.6 in this particular shot, you'd need to slow down to 1/200th of a second from 1/800th of a second, and IS would now be essential for a good shot (or a monopod).
Looking at the shot, I can guess that it's taken without flash, as the near and far field surfaces wouldn't be as evenly lit with flash as they appear.
Unless you have a dedicated job doing monopod and tripod shooting (and never take the camera out of the bag any other time), IS is a feature you're going to want. I shot a dinner two weeks ago with my 70-200/2.8IS, and although two remote flashes helped to minimize action blur, IS was a necessity to avoid background blur. Most of my shots were at ISO 3200 (the native limits of my camera), and f/2.8 (as much light as the lens will allow through), and about 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. This would have been well out of handhold range, so IS turned a <10% keeper rate into about 90% (before you factor in my horrendous timing with speaking people...).
As a testimonial, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a fairly wide angle lens. Wide angle lenses don't normally "need" IS, because the shorter focal lengths allow for slower shutter speeds in the rule of thumb for handholding, but this lens is well-regarded as the defacto wedding zoom for EF-S cameras. That's likely in big part to the IS functionality. If people love it in a wide-angle, they'll really love it in a telephoto.
Just to add a datapoint, I recently rented the amazing Canon 200mm f/2 IS lens. I went to Kerry Park in Seattle, and shot views of Seattle. Go here to see a wide-angle perspective, a telephoto perspective, and a crop of the detail in the telephoto shot. The wide angle shot was 5 seconds long, with the camera on a ledge for stability. The telephoto shot was handheld, and was only made possible with IS.
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/2021.aspx?PageIndex=2
I'm a believer in IS.
(edit) In response to the two photos by Dallasphotog:
I would like to point out that IS was not necessary for either shot. When shooting sports, 1/250 or faster shutter speeds are needed to freeze motion. At 200mm the IS would not be necessary until 1/200 or less.
The second image could have been taken at ISO 3200, f4.0, 1/800 or ISO 1600, f4.0, 1/400 or ISO 1600, f5.6, 1/200 (with IS) At that shutter speed the action begins to blur. This can add drama to an otherwise standard sports shot and that's where IS becomes a tool rather than a crutch.
So the point was......? [:D]
Dallas, you provedin that particular scenerioIS was not necessary and graciously illustrated how high ISO DSLRs should be reducing the demand for IS rather than bolstering it. Thank you!
I own the original 70-200 f2.8L. It works great for me. Are there times when I wish it had IS? Yes, the 5D has a 1/200 flash sync speed and when trying to blend flash and ambient at 120 - 200mm I have to be very careful whenshooting handheld. I would also like to be able to do artistic motion blur shutter drags. That would be fun. I would say that 99% of the time thoughthe non-IS gives me everything I need. I bought it used at a local camera store for 900 USD. It had just come back from the Canon repair shop and still had warranty time. It is my go to portrait lens.
IMHO, it is hard to justify IS for any lens less than 200mm. I will hold my opinion on the new 100 Macro until there's more evidence collected for how the IS made the shot "more possible". I know I'm in the minority on that view but it's my money and my right to be stingy with it.......[:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
For either shot shown, you are correct, because of the camera being used. Had it been the original poster, with a Rebel XS, the ISO would have been different, and therefore the aperture and/or shutter speed would have been different. Had the aperture and composition stayed the same, it would have been right on the edge of handholdability. Had the aperture been the same and the zoom ring moved any closer towards 200mm (it most likely would have been at 125mm), IS would become helpful and/or necessary.
Thanks Chuck,
You have pretty much stated what I was feeling. That the IS may not be worth money for what Im going to be shooting. I think that I will pocket the money saved and buy a 2nd lens, which I think will be the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM.
Thanks everyone for your help, I appreciate everyones opinion.
peety,
I have the XSi not the XS. Not sure if that would make a big difference in your thoughts. Just wanted to point that out though
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnman
The XSi also tops out at 1600 ISO so his remarks still apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Thanks for the input, wasn't sure if the XS had the same settings as my XSi.
In any case, Im going to go with the non IS lens and use the money saved to buy a 2nd lens. My next question is should I still get the 70-200mm f/2.8 or go with the 70-200mm f/4 and save a few more bucks?