70-200 is or not is?

H

haddock

Suspended / Banned
Messages
49
Edit My Images
No
can any one tell me if is,is worth the extra outlay.manythanks in advance.
 
brand? and if Canon do you mean f/4 or 2.8...
 
haddock said:
can any one tell me if is,is worth the extra outlay.manythanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Depends if you've got shaky hands, or if you're shooting conditions require it!

If you're in low light and your shutter speeds are 1/4 of a second then it's a must IMO, if you're outdoors in nice sunshine, and getting shutter speeds of 1/4000 then no, you won't need it!

If you can afford it, then get it......but can the money saved buy you a decent flash or maybe another lens you want? :thinking:
 
I've just changed from a f4 to f2.8is 70-200 and although I never felt the need for IS with the f4 lens I do think that with the weight of the f2.8 lens IS is going to come in very handy especially with trying to nail shots wide open
 
I'd personally save the money and get a flash but that's just me.

Also in the case of both of Canon's 70-200s the IS version is the better optically, AND have weather sealing. the non IS ones don't.
 
IS is the biggest advance in lens technology since auto focus. I wish all my lenses had it for all round ability in all lighting conditions. Unfortunately it comes at a price, and you may not need it. If you ever find yourself shooting dim church interiors at a wedding where the holy man presiding has expressly forbidden flash shots you'll be extremely thankful you have it.
 
Hi Haddock

That has got to be one of the the most asked questions on here in the last few weeks.

have a look HERE for some opinions.

HTH

David
 
CT said:
IS is the biggest advance in lens technology since auto focus. I wish all my lenses had it for all round ability in all lighting conditions. Unfortunately it comes at a price, and you may not need it. If you ever find yourself shooting dim church interiors at a wedding where the holy man presiding has expressly forbidden flash shots you'll be extremely thankful you have it.
Click to expand...

^^^ Like he said :thumbs:

If you've got the cash, the new f/2.8 MkII is wonderful. If it comes down to money, the f/4 IS is superb. I chose it over the regular f/2.8, IS or not, as it's half the weight.
 
Depends what you shoot with it really. For example for motorsports IS is very little use, you might as well save your money.

I didn't bother personally.
 
haddock said:
can any one tell me if is,is worth the extra outlay.manythanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.


Honestly if you have the choice of IS or no IS, and money isn't an overiding consideration always go for the IS one! You can always turn it off but it's pretty much impossible to turn it on if it's not there in the first place :)

Seriously it's well worth having.

cheers
 
It really does depend on what you are photographing. It you are going to get too much motion blur with the slower shutter speeds IS enables you to shoot at then it's a waste of money. What do you intend on photographing with the lens?
 
thesmileyone said:
depends on your iso too, if you can shoot at iso 3200 or higher then you can turn it up and still shoot high shutter speed.

D70 last night i had to do this and all my night shots are ruined by noise, d70 just sucks at high iso!
Click to expand...

Not sure i understand what your getting at here?

The advantage of VR/IS (in low light) is that you can use a slower shutter speeds on a stationary object without getting blur, as such if you shoot in low light, you can use a lower ISO than usual (to reduce noise).
 
I say this every time this question comes up, but raising the shutter speed doesn't eliminate camera shake, it just reduces the effect to acceptable levels. If you want to get the absolute max from quality kit, IS helps even when you think it's doing nothing.
 
I have never used a 200mm but i have a 300mm and when you are fully zoomed in you would be surprised how much shake there is, in my opinion i would get it with IS.
 
HoppyUK said:
I say this every time this question comes up, but raising the shutter speed doesn't eliminate camera shake, it just reduces the effect to acceptable levels..
Click to expand...

Neither does IS completely, it only 'reduces' it as well.
There is also no point in buying an IS lens if it will be used only in situations where it is of no use (a la motorsport, birding etc)

I would also beg to differ that having a shutter speed of 1/2000 @ 200mm won't eliminate camera shake, unless you have the worst form of Parkinsons known to mankind!
 
trencheel303 said:
I would also beg to differ that having a shutter speed of 1/2000 @ 200mm won't eliminate camera shake, unless you have the worst form of Parkinsons known to mankind!
Click to expand...

Do try to think through some of these rather emphatic statements you're prone to making before you commit to print. Hoppy has a lifetime of experience he's glady passing on. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten you in due course, but do please note we're primarily talking about bird photography with long lenses.

Take a 600mm lens with a 2X converter (1200mm) - by no means unusual, and 1/2000th of a second without IS would not guarantee no camera shake. IS would be invaluable with that combination.
 
trencheel303 said:
There is also no point in buying an IS lens if it will be used only in situations where it is of no use (a la motorsport, birding etc)
Click to expand...

Fair point, although it can be of use while panning if you set the right mode.

I suspect a 70-200 wouldn't be your first choice of lens for birding either. :)

I have the f/2.8L IS (Mk1) and it's useful when I need it. Most of the time it's probably useful when I don't think I need it.

e2a: Slightly OT now, but with the f/4, unless budget is the main consideration, I'd definitely get the IS version as it's optically far superior to the non-IS version.
 
trencheel303 said:
Neither does IS completely, it only 'reduces' it as well.
There is also no point in buying an IS lens if it will be used only in situations where it is of no use (a la motorsport, birding etc)

I would also beg to differ that having a shutter speed of 1/2000 @ 200mm won't eliminate camera shake, unless you have the worst form of Parkinsons known to mankind!
Click to expand...

Would you buy a camera that didn't have any shutter speeds longer than 1/250sec? If you only shoot motorsport and birds? That's the same kind of logic :thinking:

Try some tests. Set your shutter speed on the limit for hand-holding according to the 1/mm focal length rule (where you 'should' be completely safe from shake) and shoot a sequence of six pictures, both with and without IS, and pixel peep them.

If you can't tell them apart then a) I'm a Dutchman, and b) you have very steady hands ;)
 
CT said:
Do try to think through some of these rather emphatic statements you're prone to making before you commit to print. Hoppy has a lifetime of experience he's glady passing on. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten you in due course, but do please note we're primarily talking about bird photography with long lenses.

Take a 600mm lens with a 2X converter (1200mm) - by no means unusual, and 1/2000th of a second without IS would not guarantee no camera shake. IS would be invaluable with that combination.
Click to expand...

So my statement is emphatic because I don't believe that camera shake at 200mm is a problem with a shutter speed of 1/2000, how interesting.

Last I checked this was a thread about 70-200s not some three trillion millimetre lens or whatever that weighs half as much as a car. Yes, IS would sure be good in a situation like that - I have not disputed that in this thread have I. I just don't think IS on a 70-200 is as critical as some folk make out, and Hoppy's post about high shutter speeds not eliminating camera shake grates on me because it clearly does, otherwise people wouldn't use high shutter speeds at all except for action freezing. Heaven forbid for having a different opinion on something, seems a real problem on here to disagree with the masses doesn't it.

before taking your chance in line to jump down my throat like a lot of people do here, actually read what I type.


HoppyUK said:
Would you buy a camera that didn't have any shutter speeds longer than 1/250sec? If you only shoot motorsport and birds? That's the same kind of logic :thinking:

Try some tests. Set your shutter speed on the limit for hand-holding according to the 1/mm focal length rule (where you 'should' be completely safe from shake) and shoot a sequence of six pictures, both with and without IS, and pixel peep them.

If you can't tell them apart then a) I'm a Dutchman, and b) you have very steady hands ;)
Click to expand...

If I was buying a camera that would be used in a situation where I never needed a slower shutter speed, then yes!

And yes, I have done these tests and there were no discernable differences in sharpness. I can achieve pin sharp shots with the 50mm at 1/50 consistently.

Go on, someone else tell me I'm wrong for that as well, or that I am lying, or that I'm an idiot, or whatever else.
 
trencheel303 said:
So my statement is emphatic because I don't believe that camera shake at 200mm is a problem with a shutter speed of 1/2000, how interesting.

Last I checked this was a thread about 70-200s not some three trillion millimetre lens or whatever that weighs half as much as a car. Yes, IS would sure be good in a situation like that - I have not disputed that in this thread have I. I just don't think IS on a 70-200 is as critical as some folk make out, and Hoppy's post about high shutter speeds not eliminating camera shake grates on me because it clearly does, otherwise people wouldn't use high shutter speeds at all except for action freezing. Heaven forbid for having a different opinion on something, seems a real problem on here to disagree with the masses doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Hoppy never mentioned 1/2000th of a second - you did - typically going to the extreme to try to make your point. In the real world, and dependng on the light situation, such a shutter speed couild be completely unattainable.

before taking your chance in line to jump down my throat like a lot of people do here, actually read what I type.
Click to expand...
I read what you typed and it added nothing useful to the thread whatsoever. Sorry to hear that people (or should that be "the masses") are queueing up to jump down your throat, but I wonder why that is - perhaps you should too?
 
CT said:
Hoppy never mentioned 1/2000th of a second - you did
Click to expand...

Yes I did Cedric, and it demonstrated my point perfectly well - to the point that no one has directly answered it, instead avoiding it and going 'but but but' bla bla bla 600mm etc etc etc. My point was, in direct response to Richard stating that upping shutter speeds does not eliminate camera shake, that at 200mm, 1/2000 will not produce camera shake unless there is something seriously wrong. See what I did there? I made a point and I qualified it. I didn't mention gigantic lenses and adverse lighting conditions, and the usefulness of IS in those situations - you did.

;)
 
ok............... I would personally choose a 70-200 with IS as i do a lot of low light work.. And i agree with a previous post, its easier to turn off if you have it, than turn on if you don't! Thing is, its a massive difference in price, i'd say if your shooting outdoor during the day, you probably won't need it.. But at night or indoor, then go for it..
 
Oh oh... we've gone to bold type! :eek:

We're talking about practical situations. When I use my 70-200 2.8L IS - I treat it no differently to longer lenses. It's on a tripod and gimbal with IS enabled. Often I start right after first light in the morning when there's lots of activity but the light can be dire.Talking about shutter speeds of 1/2000th is pure fantasy in that situation without raising the ISO to totally unacceptable levels. Such slight increases in shutter speed as you're able to make obviously have a benefit, but the point that was originally being made is that IS is still operative and still having a benefit.
 
trencheel303 said:
So my statement is emphatic because I don't believe that camera shake at 200mm is a problem with a shutter speed of 1/2000, how interesting.

Last I checked this was a thread about 70-200s not some three trillion millimetre lens or whatever that weighs half as much as a car. Yes, IS would sure be good in a situation like that - I have not disputed that in this thread have I. I just don't think IS on a 70-200 is as critical as some folk make out, and Hoppy's post about high shutter speeds not eliminating camera shake grates on me because it clearly does, otherwise people wouldn't use high shutter speeds at all except for action freezing. Heaven forbid for having a different opinion on something, seems a real problem on here to disagree with the masses doesn't it.

before taking your chance in line to jump down my throat like a lot of people do here, actually read what I type.




If I was buying a camera that would be used in a situation where I never needed a slower shutter speed, then yes!

And yes, I have done these tests and there were no discernable differences in sharpness. I can achieve pin sharp shots with the 50mm at 1/50 consistently.

Go on, someone else tell me I'm wrong for that as well, or that I am lying, or that I'm an idiot, or whatever else.
Click to expand...

I'm not telling you you're wrong, or anything else for that matter, but I will tell you that if you can get sharp images consistently (ie 100% of the time, every time) hand held at the 1/focal length rule minimum, then you are most unusual. Many people take that rule as gospel, and they should not.

That rule is only a guide and is marginal at best. IS helps most people more than they think, more often than they know - because they've never actually done any real tests, with and without, side by side. I'm talking about everyday photography in normal situations, not at 1/2000sec or with 600mm lenses. Regular Joe stuff.

The other thing I'm not sure has been mentioned so far is that IS (ie in-lens stabilisation) also stabilises the viewfinder. For really accurate positioning, that is useful even at 100-150mm (eg when you're trying to nail that focus spot exactly on the eyes in portraits), it's very helpful indeed at 300mm, and pretty much invaluable at longer focal lengths just for framing.
 
We still haven't heard from the OP what type of photography he does mostly. At the end of the day for a lot of us, it is a case of money. When i bought my lens there was a £4-500 difference in price between the two models. I can safely say the IS was not worth £400 more to me (for my preferred types of photography) Not to mention 200mm is not that long a focal length in the grand scheme of things.

CT, some of your posts come across pretty needlessly rude and childish, whats the point, this guy is entitled to his own opinion, as are you.
 
dunganick said:
. At the end of the day for a lot of us, it is a case of money. When i bought my lens there was a £4-500 difference in price between the two models. I can safely say the IS was not worth £400 more to me (for my preferred types of photography) Not to mention 200mm is not that long a focal length in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Well if you can't afford it and you claim you don't need it anyway, your advice has to be suspect, and of limited use to the OP in making a decision about IS. No-one is claiming IS to be a panacea for all ills, but for those who need it, it's simply invaluable. I've tried to give practical advice about situations where it's effective. The misinformation being propagated about IS, particularly it's effectiveness on a tripod, is difficult to understand considering the information comes with the equipment, is freely available on the internet, and has been posted on this board so many times in the past.

CT, some of your posts come across pretty needlessly rude and childish, whats the point, this guy is entitled to his own opinion, as are you.
Click to expand...

Clearly we have different ideas about what constitues 'rude and childish'.
 
I dont agree with the posters claiming IS is no use for motorsport. It is.

I use a 'lowly' 55-250is for my motorsport photography and it works a dream, punching well above its weight in comparison to other more expensive lenses. I have no doubt this is due to the 4 way stabilisation, which includes panning detection.

Why would Canon make a lens with panning detection in the IS if it was no use for such shots?!

My motorsport panning shots are sharp and crisp with IS on, with the keeper rate lowered by about 60% with it off!! IS still keeps the frame steady, no matter what you are shooting so has uses, in my opinion, in ANY type of photography situation.
 
CT said:
Well if you can't afford it and you claim you don't need it anyway, your advice has to be suspect, and of limited use to the OP in making a decision about IS. No-one is claiming IS to be a panacea for all ills, but for those who need it, it's simply invaluable. I've tried to give practical advice about situations where it's effective. The misinformation being propagated about IS, particularly it's effectiveness on a tripod, is difficult to understand considering the information comes with the equipment, is freely available on the internet, and has been posted on this board so many times in the past.



Clearly we have different ideas about what constitues 'rude and childish'.
Click to expand...

Clearly yes we do.

For what its worth i trailed an IS for a week from a friend for some Football and Motorsport. I found the IS on panning mode to be very poor and a hinderance. The vast majority of people shooting IS and particularly VR lenses for motorsport do not use the feature, which echo's what i found with the IS lens i had tried.

The issues i found with the panning IS mode, was when introducing angles into a pan, panning is not all done at perfect angles or straight lines, this is where it causes issues.
 
Ref above... as per my post at the end of page 1, I find panning detection (which still works at angles up to and over 45 degrees) very effective on the 55-250, turning it off and attempting the same shot proved this for me.

You cant rely on it, it will never eliminate camera shake, thats still very much down to the person behind the lens, but it certainly helps in every situation I have shot in.
 
Dunganick, I don't think CT's posts are rude, he just doesn't like the fact that I've got different views, as his latest post still ignored the point I was originally getting at, as he obviously knows I am right :)
 
Why all this acrimonious arguing over flippin IS?! :eek:

It works, it doesn't solve every problem, it (sometimes) costs more, you can turn it off. You choose :shrug:
 
If you read the thread I was simple curious about something I didn't agree with. People on This forum start arguments when an opinion they don't like pops up.
 
trencheel303 said:
If you read the thread I was simple curious about something I didn't agree with. People on This forum start arguments when an opinion they don't like pops up.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony......:lol:



[YOUTUBE]8v9yUVgrmPY[/YOUTUBE]
 
Completely off topic... but I loved that song!!! :lol:
 
Having just skipped most of the thread I'll just say...

I just got a non IS 70-200 f/4 and the only reason I didn't get the IS... money. If I had it I would have got the IS version. Yes it doesn't work in every situation but it can be worth it's weight in gold in a lot of situations.

Got the money? Get the IS.
 
i would be surprised if it has not already been mentioned but you are better off investing in a Monopod than IS on a 70 to 200mm IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top