IS vs Non IS lenses

I have yet to pull the trigger on my new lens.


Can someone please tell me the main difference between IS and non IS, besides the price. I have gotten mixed answers in regard to spending the extra $ on IS. Many people have told me that it really is not needed, especially for the kinds of photos Im taking.


Im just so confused. The pictures I take are mostly family shots and sports shots of my kids. They are both in high school and are involved in football, swimming, baseball, cheer, and competitive cheer. Lots of indoor low light shots as well as some night time outside shooting.


Im looking to buy a good zoom lens such as the 70-200 f/2.8, but this is where I dont know if it is worth spending the extra money on IS. I currently have the XSi body, kit lens, and my 50mm lens from my old film canon camera.


I'm thinking that if I dont get the IS then I could get another lens like the 100mm f/2.0 or is the IS worth the money and it is something that I should have.


I have attached a couple of photos that I took the other night. As you can see I have access to the field and as long as the play is near a sideline I can get a pretty good shot. But when they are out in the middle of the field or Im behind the end zone then it is tough to get a good shot with just the 50mm lens.


Please be kind about the photos as I am still learning how to use the camera. This is a huge step up for me from the point and shoot camera.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.00/East-vs-Clio.JPG[/img]


The above was a play near me on the sideline. It was taken with my XSi and the canon 100mm f/1.4 lens. I adjusted the size so I could include it here as the original was quite large.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.00/East-Field-goal-attempt.JPG[/img]


Taken with the same 50mm lens but with no zoom it is hard to get a great shot.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.00/East-on-the-march-_2D00_-from-behind-the-end-zone.JPG[/img]


Another shot with the 50mm from behind the end zone.


Would having an IS lens been of great benefit for me on these. I know I need a good telephoto like the 70-200mm but should I spend the extra bucks for IS?


Please help!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.00/East-vs-Clio.JPG[/img]


The above was a play near me on the sideline. It was taken with my XSi and the canon 100mm f/1.4 lens.



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Meant to say Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens NOT the 100mm.

If you plan to use a tripod or possibly a monopod you can save yourself the $$.


The 70-200 2.8 IS is a wonderful lens I love mine a lot.. but it's a heavy beast :)


But if you can sit down, enjoy the sports and use a monopod you should be able to get away with the 2.8 non IS... my 2 cents.

I use my EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM for a lot of my sports coverage. Even if the EF300 f/2.8 or EF400 f/2.8 is my primary lens for the day, I always have the 70-200 close at hand. I think you will like the lens a lot.


I find the IS very useful in situations where the lighting is less than optimal. I have a non IS EF300 f/4.0 and I can't hand hold it slower than about 1/200. With the IS on, I havehand hand held the 70-200 at 1/60 and even 1/30 and been very happy with the results.


I think the confusion comes from the capabilities of IS. IS doesn't help a bit with motion blur casued by a moving subject. If your football players are in full stride, you'll still need a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion. Its real purpose is to eliminate the motions induced by the photographer. If you are rock solid or shoot from a tripod, IS won'tprovide a lot of benefit. If you're like me and shooting from a monopod or hand held and potentially trying to step over a fallen line judge while keeping the wide receiever perfectly composed, you'll appreciate the benefits of IS.

Thanks Dallas...you are correct, I am confused about what IS actually will help with. So basically it will help me create a steadier hand for my shots, so to speak. Using a tripod or in some cases even a monopod, I probably wont see much if any difference. But is with the hand held shots, maybe walking or strong wind, whatever makes my hand unsteady, this is where I will see improved results.


Do I have the concept of IS down now?


Sorry for all the questions, I do appreciate all the information though!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

Thanks Dallas...you are correct, I am confused about what IS actually will help with. So basically it will help me create a steadier hand for my shots, so to speak. Using a tripod or in some cases even a monopod, I probably wont see much if any difference. But is with the hand held shots, maybe walking or strong wind, whatever makes my hand unsteady, this is where I will see improved results.


Do I have the concept of IS down now?


Sorry for all the questions, I do appreciate all the information though!!

---

Yes, that is basically correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

Thanks Dallas...you are correct, I am confused about what IS actually will help with. So basically it will help me create a steadier hand for my shots, so to speak. Using a tripod or in some cases even a monopod, I probably wont see much if any difference. But is with the hand held shots, maybe walking or strong wind, whatever makes my hand unsteady, this is where I will see improved results.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

The longer (more telephoto) the lens, the faster you'll need the shutter speed to avoid shake blur. Sometimes, the only answer to that problem is aperture. I tell people to look at their pictures and assess what's blurry - if the whole picture is blurry, IS might be the answer; if the subject is blurry, wider aperture (or higher ISO) is more likely the answer.


From a mathematical perspective, normal rule of thumb for handholding is 1/&lt;effective-focal-length&gt; (where EFL is lens focal length x camera crop factor). With a 2-stop IS unit (first generation), this becomes 4/EFL. 3-stop IS unit becomes 8/EFL, and the newest 4-stop IS units become 16/EFL as the rule of thumb. A 70-200 lens is somewhat in the middle - on a crop camera, 1/320th might be doable except in low light, but a 400/5.6 (at 1/640th) ends up with a handhold "requirement" faster than typical stop-action needs.

Thanks peety,


Unfortunately a lot of your post is to technical for me as I am just learning about this camera. As I stated this is a step up for me from a point and shoot, so you lost me with most of your last paragraph

On the zoom ring of your lens, it'll tell you what focal length you're at. On non-zoom ("prime") lenses, the lens should still tell you what focal length you're at.


Your Rebel body has a 1.6x "crop factor", so every lens you use has an effective focal length that's 1.6 times the focal length you see on the lens itself.


If shutter speed doesn't matter to the artistic/creative aspect of your pictures and you are shooting handheld, any particular focal length lens (combined with a particular camera) needs a certain shutter speed (or faster) to minimize/eliminate blurriness due to camera shake. A 50mm lens on your camera needs a shutter speed of 1/80th of a second or faster. A 200mm lens on your camera needs a shutter speed of 1/320th of a second. A 500mm lens on your camera needs a shutter speed of 1/800th of a second.


If there isn't enough light (aperture and ISO factor in here; we'll save their influences for other threads) to get shutter speeds as fast as the above guidelines, IS can help you out. The 70-200/2.8IS lens reportedly has a 3-stop IS unit. Therefore, at 70mm focal length you'd need a shutter speed of 1/14th of a second with IS, and at 200mm focal length you'd need 1/40th. For non-action shots, this can make or break your shots.


For action sports photography, 1/500th is a typical guideline for getting crisp action shots, so in those cases IS won't really matter. In a nutshell, if you aren't getting shutter speeds fast enough for stop action, you'd want to increase the ISO setting and/or open the aperture setting of the lens wider.


Consider getting a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It should explain the creative/artistic aspects of small/large apertures and slow/fast shutter speeds for you quite well.

I do a lot of hand held sports photography, so were sort of in the same boat. Most of my kids'soccer/baseballgames start at 6:00 at night, so it isn't dark but dusk, especially towards the end of the game. Of course the B-Ball games are in doors. I should point out that I take all shots hand-held. I aso take a lot of indoor pics of the kids, birthday party pics, sunsets,etc... I guess what I'm trying to say is that these are all considered low light situations. I should also take a moment to tell you that I rarely use the flash unlessI absolutely have to. This is where the IS really comes in handy and will save a ton of shots. IMO it's a must! In broad daylight or if your going to use a tri/monopod it's not going to help you, so you can just flip the switch and turn it off. I also have an XSi and the lens I use for sports is an EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS which is not a fast lens, meaning when I'm zooming in on the action, my minimum aperture is 5.6, so although IS doesn't stop action (raise your shutter speed), it does basically eliminates camera shake which is the main cause of blurry pics. Now your looking at the 70-200 f2.8 which I have used on several occations (Non IS version) and it is a great lens. Shooting at 2.8 really helps low light shooting... big time. You can usually get a fast enough shutter speed in low light that you wouldn't need IS. IMO the only time you would "need" IS on the 70-200 f2.8 is if you were stoping up and shooting at f4.0, f5.6, or higher in low light. If your shootingmostly day games or use a tri/monopod, you definitly don't need it. I'm in the same position you are. I am planning on buying one of these lenses(70-200 f2.8 IS or non IS)in the near future and I'm undecided myself. I was dead set on getting the IS version until I shot with the non IS. If you've never shot at f2.8, you'll be amazed what it can do. Maybe rent the IS version and try it in low light situations with and without the IS on.


Hope this helps,


Steve

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

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????
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

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 &lt;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

(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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

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

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
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

The XSi also tops out at 1600 ISO so his remarks still apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>


The XSi also tops out at 1600 ISO so his remarks still apply.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

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?

---

don (pause for effect) man,


That's entirely dependent on your shooting goals. If you are going to shoot B-Ball inside a Gym, f4 may be pushing it. However, the difference between the f4 and f2.8IS would almost be enough to upgrade to a refurbed 40D or used 50D. Then you would at least have the ISO 3200 +1EV advantage over the XSi you currently own. If your very happy with your XSi then you simply need to decide what you think you will need for the kind of photography you want to do. Both lenses are phenomenal pieces of glass.


If you want to shoot sports then you need the AF advantage that the XXD cameras have over your current body and that may be a bigger advantage at f4 than the XSi at f2.8. At f2.8 the DOF is pretty thin and sharply focused action shots will be harder to produce with the XSi. I have never owned an XSi so I don't know anything about it's autofocus speed. I assume that it's not as fast or as accurate as the XXD's. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.


I find that with the 5D &amp; 40D, my keeper percentage increases if I use ISO 3200 f4 instead of ISO 1600 f2.8 when shooting basketball indoors. (My son's Upward pee-wee basketball) OKay, so why would I buy the f2.8 version. Because I happened across agreat deal and I shoota lotin natural/low light situations like church and weddings where flash would/could be distracting. I use f2.8 as much if not morethan f4.


That'stwo more Abes.........[:D]

It is also worth mentioning that the 70-200 has two IS modes. The 2nd allows for side to side panning with the IS correcting for only the vertical camera shake. This can help with shots where the subject motion is side to side.


At the 70mm end of the zoom the IS is almost never useful for moving subjects, in my opinion. By the time IS is getting useful (under 1/100s) you are already getting subject motion blur. Being able to shoot at 1/30s or 1/15s won't help if the subject is moving. I would take a f/2.8 non-IS over a f/4 IS for shooting sports...

Another consideration is that the IS may not be the only difference between the two lenses. Looking at Bryan's magic mouse-over ISO chart comparing the 70-200mm F4 L IS vs. the non-IS version, itshows a massive improvement in image quality in the IS lens. Since the poor results on the non-IS lens can be seen across 3 camera bodies, it's probably not just a fluke. I checked at 70, 135, and 200mm. While the difference is much less at 200mm, there is massive amount of blur in the non-IS lens at lower focal lengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

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????
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

The second shot is about 2/3 of the way across the field...and it was shot without flash. I haven't found evry many sporting events where flash is effective.


I really like the IS a lot. I handhold wedding pictures in dark churches and it just makes me a better photographer. As for sports, I think it saves me when I'm bouncing around trying to move and shoot at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

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.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I want to see a bunch of those pictures from the EF200 f/2.0...I keep telling my daughter we need it for basketball season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

(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......? [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


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.......[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Sure.What I was trying to show was the results you can get with the lens shooting football. Now, if you want to see the miracles of IS, check this out. I can't come close to holding a non-IS lens this cleanly at 1/30.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...erSister-1.jpg


Canon XTi, Canon EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, Av, 135mm, F/2.8, ISO-400, 1/30

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallasphotog

Sure.What I was trying to show was the results you can get with the lens shooting football. Now, if you want to see the miracles of IS, check this out. I can't come close to holding a non-IS lens this cleanly at 1/30.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Sure you can. The flash, namely if you use read curtain sync will help to sharpen the subject. Its also a matter of proper holding and bracing techniques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallasphotog

I can't come close to holding a non-IS lens this cleanly at 1/30.

---

Then why do it? All it would take would be for her move a little and that picture would be ruined. I certainly would not try this during a wedding unless I was absolutely maxed out on the highest ISO I could trust. In very difficult situations, it would be awesome to have. But that's not the point. It's awesome to have and if I were making a living as a photographer I wouldn't hesitate but I don't think that is donnman's interest. I believe Dallas that you are making a living and for you the best of the best is exactly what you need. For donnman, I think many of us here believe that it is an unecessary expenditure.


I can't tell if the catch light is a window or flash with modifyer, but if this is flash all bets are off on the 1/30th handheld. I would then agree with with Ehcalum, it could be done at 1/135 on non IS, no prob.


If I were shooting that, I'd have my 5D set to ISO 800, f2.8, 1/160 135mm on 70-200 with bounce flash and get the similar results.


That is a beautiful shot and I do not want to take away from that.


Good Discussion.......[:)]

I just want to say thanks to all who commented and offered their opinions. This is why I love this site...I still havent made my final decision but I think Im going with the non IS 70-200mm f/2.8


On a side note, one of the pictures I posted was purchased by our local newspaper. So, I guess that I am officially a freelance sports photographer now. They have asked me to take some more shots and have issued me a press badge....pretty exciting for me. I was hoping to make a few bucks on the side and now it appears that I may have that opportunity.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.00/East-vs-Clio.JPG[/img]


The picture above is the one that they published along with a story about the game. It is so cool to see your work in the paper. My wife and daughter want to start a scrapbook for me...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donnman

On a side note, one of the pictures I posted was purchased by our local newspaper

---

That's absolutely fantastic donnman!!

Thanks Chuck! I'm pretty excited about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallasphotog

I want to see a bunch of those pictures from the EF200 f/2.0...I keep telling my daughter we need it for basketball season.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

If you get one, you might as well super-glue it onto the camera, 'cuz you won't want to take it off. The 85L may be addictive, but the 200/2 turned me into a bouncing superball with glee for the better part of 40 hours last month. Oh, is there an aperture control? I can't imagine why I'd need it...I seem to enjoy framing singular things in this viewfinder. Oh, is there an ISO knob? I can't imagine I'd need it...ISO 200 and f/2 and a ridiculously good IS unit means my pictures are awesome every time (unless the subject moves a lot).


All shots 200/2LIS on a 1D Mark III, ISO 800 (don't know why!), evaluative metering -1/3 (I was experimenting then), AI Servo on center point, RAW, white balance correction and JPEG conversion in DPP, no other processing.


Down the slide (1/500th). This is about the sixth frame I shot with the lens whatsoever - learning curve isn't bad.


http://photos.templin.org/albums/kin..._002.sized.jpg


Hey ma, no hands (1/640th)


http://photos.templin.org/albums/kin..._009.sized.jpg


Check the bokeh. I'm 5'9", the boys are in one of those playground plastic cars on a bendy spring, so they're probably sitting 1' off the ground. I'm 10-12' away, shooting downwards though not very much so, and the background is just plain mush.


http://photos.templin.org/albums/kin..._005.sized.jpg


Portrait orientation, on-camera flash (thankfully it clears the lens hood enough!), and you can count the eyelashes.


http://photos.templin.org/albums/kin..._018.sized.jpg


As Bryan's review says, "This is one of those lenses that can set you and your work apart from the competition", and he isn't kidding. However, as a "beginner lens collector", I sadly realize that it's a long way away on the shopping list (especially with a girlfriend into photography as well). Since I have a very functional and very versatile 70-200/2.8IS, I have the 200mm focal length covered, with IS, only one stop slower, and I anticipate getting the 300/2.8 and 500/4 before I come back for the 200/2 and 400/2.8. :( More to come from the wedding rehearsal once I post those.