Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 with or with IS

[freelanceDon]

Fairly new to the digital camera and Im looking for an upgrade from the kit lens of my XSi. Most reviews I have read said that the 70-200 f/2.8 is on of the best lenses. My question is to get it with IS or save the money and go non-IS and perhaps pick up a 2nd lens with the savings.


Mostly shot local area sports, football, hockey, basketball, baseball, etc. Have a freelance gig with the local newspapers here. So far this past winter season I shoot exclusively with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. It did a nice job as long as I was right on top of the action. Now Im looking at a zoom lens, just not sure about IS or no IS???


Any suggestions?

[neuroanatomist]

IS helps reduce the effects of camera shake (which becomes more problematic as focal length increases), but does nothing to stop subject motion. When you're shooting sports you need to use fast shutter speeds to stop the players' motion - those fast shutter speeds also eliminate the effect of camera shake.


So, if you shoot exclusively human action sports, I'd say IS will not help much or at all (I say 'human action sports' because for motor sports, e.g. auto racing, slower shutter speeds and panning are used, and IS will help a lot for that).

[scalesusa]

I've has 1 of the non IS model, and 3 of the IS models. All of them were good, the non-IS was the sharpest. I ended up selling them because I had the 70-210mm F4L IS which was superior in image quality, and much lighter and easy to use. My old arms got pretty tired after carrying the F/2.8 around for a while. Now, I use primes when I need a wider aperture, F/2.8 is marginal in low light.


Is does a wonderful job of helping get quick shots off handheld. You must be careful and deliberate with non IS, and keep the shutter speeds up. When using a crop camera, I'd use 1/500 or faster.


This negates the usefullnes and expense of f/2.8 to some extent.


For about the same price, the f/4 L IS is a bargain.

[Jarhead5811]

...sports, football, hockey, basketball, baseball, etc.

Action sports photography is one of the more popular uses for the non-IS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens as IS cannot stop subject action and f/2.8 is as fast as any EF zoom lens Canon makes.



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

My Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lensis scheduled to arrive tomorrow. My primary subject is a 14 month old boy that is just starting to walk and is only still when he's asleep. I figure he's as active as any action sport.

[elmo_2006]

If it helps at all, I went with the 2.8 IS USM version as I cannot for the life of me keep my arms/hands still and could use the extra help. Even with a quick shutter speed, IS comes in handy when hand holding. But agreed it does not stop subject motion.


There's really no easy answer but possible recommendations. It comes down to preference. I knew going into the purchase that I needed the IS and that travelling around with a tripod/monopod was wishful thinking as there are moments where you would have wished for the IS version.


My $0.02 worth...

[Jarhead5811]

It comes down to preference.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

No, it comes to buget. [:P]





I just use the "IS can't stop motion" argumentto make me feel better about it. Some might call it sour grapes.

[elmo_2006]

LOL...then may I suggest where possible to rent both lenses over a couple of weekends to get a feel for the IS. If not and judging by your last retort, then it seems that you have made your decision due to cost which I fully respect. Either way you will enjoy the lens.


With a savings of $500, you may be able to purchase another lens or treat your loved one to a fancy dinner! [H]

[alexniedra]

There's really no easy answer but possible recommendations. It comes down to preference. I knew going into the purchase that I needed the IS and that travelling around with a tripod/monopod was wishful thinking as there are moments where you would have wished for the IS version.

I agree. It really depends on your preference. Sure, budget can sway your decision, but a decision based on budget alone is a decision you may very well regret later on. I recommend you think about your shooting conditions. There have been countless instances where IS has made it possible for me to shoot - mostly when I shoot images of musicians and public speakers in dimly-lit venues. Of course, it has it's limitations, which many have pointed out already - It can only do so much. But what it has done for me has easily justified the $500 CAD cost difference between the IS and non-IS versions.


Just like Elmo_2006, this is just another personal anectdote. My $0.02.

[peterborough_photography]

Im sort of in the same boat I dont know if I should buy

• Canon
  EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM

OR

• Canon
  EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Price wise in the UK its about &pound;400-500 dif





Any views from anybody that has used both ????

[neuroanatomist]

The f/4 IS version is significantly smaller and lighter, and compared to the Mk I version of the f/2.8 IS, the f/4 IShas better image stabilization and better image quality - but it's f/4. If you need the extra stop, you need it. The Mk II version of the f/2.8 IS has equivalent IS and IQ to the f/4 IS, but of course the price differential is much greater. So, the question is, do you need that extra stop either for light gathering or for OOF blur? If so, you either sacrifice some stabilization capability and IQ (and some &pound for the f/2.8 Mk I, or you sacrifice your pocketbook and much more &pound;&pound;&pound; for the f/2.8 Mk II.