300mm 2.8 - WITH IS or WITHOUT for sports?

[glarizza]

Hi All,


I'm just about to purchase a 300mm 2.8 lens, but I'm debating between a brand new one (with IS) or a used one WITHOUT IS. The difference is about $2,000 - which is quite a bit. I shoot mainly sports (outdoor and indoor), and IS us usually not an issue. I have a handfull of weddings, however, and THAT'S where the IS would come into play. What would you do? Thanks!





-Gary

[Daniel Browning]

The difference is about $2,000...I have a handfull of weddings

If the only difference was the IS (i.e. you're not worried about any difference in optical performance), then you just have to decide how often you would use 300mm f/2.8 at a wedding. And if it could not be replaced by 300mm f/4 IS (or 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4X TC). Personally, I would buy a 1.4X TC for my 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and pocket the $1700.


Another thing to keep in mind is that our standard for sharpness will probably go up in the future. So a shutter speed that was handholdable with IS in 2009 (say, 300mm at 1/60 with IS) will require faster shutter speeds in 2011. Or maybe not -- maybe our standards will stay about the same (they're already high enough for 8x10 and sometimes 12x18 prints).


Another factor to consider is that IS can sometimes *blur* an image at 1/500 and above (Thom Hogan explained this to me) . For sports I think you'll be good enough with a monopod and no IS.

[Oren]

Another factor to consider is that IS can sometimes *blur* an image at 1/500 and above (Thom Hogan explained this to me)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Can you explain this for us as well?

[glarizza]

Dan,


I do actually have both the 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4x TC. I find that shooting that tends to slow down AF and give me smoother shots all around. I'm looking for the fast AF, the sharpness of the 300 2.8, and the ability to shoot 300mm @ 2.8. May main concern was optical clarity of the NON-IS versus the IS lens, and the clarity of buying a Used lens, versus a new lens.

[mattsartin]

i have used the 300 2.8 IS several times for football and baseball at night and during the day, never used the IS. fantastic choice though, i promise you wont regret it. i would definitely go with the used and buy yourself somethin else too! have fun with it, i'm jealous

[Daniel Browning]

Can you explain this for us as well?

"Because it tends to be counterproductive above 1/500. Everyone seems
to think that VR has an infinite cycling time. It doesn't. It's
sampling frequency is just above 1/500. Most pros turn it off for
sports. "


http://www.bythom.com/discipline.htm


"VR off. In fast action, there is no time for the VR to settle, and it will still be "VRing" while you're taking the picture. Fighting you, rather than helping you. "
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&amp;message=31828838

[Daniel Browning]

May main concern was optical clarity of the NON-IS versus the IS lens, and the clarity of buying a Used lens, versus a new lens.

I don't really know enough to answer that question, but I know lots of people shoot the non-IS version and used lenses and get really great results.

[RonG]

I went through this same issue about 2 months ago. I purchased a non-IS canon 300mm f2.8 through Adorama. The price was right but the lens was not. It's focus ability was hit or miss on my 40d and my 1D. I returned it without difficulty (Adorama was great) and am reassessing my need for a longer telephoto vs. lighting equipment. If I buy again it will be a newer better condition 300mm f.28 IS lens.