IS vs Non IS lenses

[peety3]

(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.

[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

[Mark Elberson]

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.

[donnman]

<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?

[Chuck Lee]

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.........[]

[BCalkins]

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...

[DavidEccleston]

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.