70-200 is or not is?

Monopod and 70-200mm 2.8 is what I would go for unless I had the money for the MKII
 
Heaven help you two who have suggested that IS on a 70-200 isn't a necessity. May the God's smite you for that!
 
Not everyone wants to put up with the encumberance of a monopod - fine of you're relatively static, but it's not for everyone, which is where IS or VR comes in...
 
Amp34 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same! :thumbs:
 
Get the IS, if you miss that one shot because you didn't have it you'll kick yourself!
They hold their value well so consider it an investment.
 
Interesting thread this one with people assuming the OP is shooting what they do a bit... Clearly an IS lens will produce less visible camera shake at a slower shutter speeds than non-IS. But, there is a serious cost to get IS and unless you have a large wallet dedicated to camera kit, which there are few people on here with, then you have to weigh up the additional cost to the alternatives. I shoot dogs and horses in action with my 70-200 F2.8, IS is pointless as I need to shoot at 1/250 anyway as the subjects move fast and erratically! The extra money I save by not investing in IS will go on a nice wide angle zoom when I've got enough in the camera budget.

This brings you back to what is the OP going to be taking photos of?
 
but but, upping your shutter speed doesn't eliminate camera shake and if you got the IS lens all your pictures would be sharper!!!!!!!11!! ONE!


Gordon Scott said:
The extra money I save by not investing in IS will go on a nice wide angle zoom when I've got enough in the camera budget.
Click to expand...

Or a flash, tripod, monopod, second body....
 
Trench...mate... take a valium and lie down before you do yourself a mischief...
 
This idea that IS costs loads of money, well, does it? Sure, there are a couple of popular Canon zooms, both 70-200L, that are available at substantially more money than the non-IS versions, but they are also completely different optical designs and also have better IQ.

Where else is the evidence?

Take the humble kit lens, £100 and has IS. The excellent value EF-S 55-250 has IS. The 70-300 has IS, yet is quite a bit cheaper than the (very roughly) similar spec 70-200L 4. The superb Canon 17-55 2.8 has IS, yet the identical spec Nikon version does not, and is more expensive.

:shrug:
 
I really dont understand why people wouldnt want IS/VR on EVERY lens they own!!!!

I challenge the nay-sayers to name me one photographic situation, even at high shutter speeds, where a steadier frame would not be an advantage in getting the better end result?

Landscapes - check (invaluable on my 18-135 in normal light, eliminating the need for tripod in anything other than night shots)

Motorsport - check. My 55-250 IS is excellent for panning with IS, noticably sharper images at the high tele end.

Portraits - check. Shaper results and far more able to use natural light

Equestrian - check. Even at high shutter speeds it eliminates camera shake at the high end of the 55-250.

I could go on but if you havnt got the point now you wont!!

...and as for cost, it only seems an expensive 'option' on the L series lenses, there are plenty of nicely priced EFS (and EF) lenses with supurb IS built in as standard (17-55, 18-135, 15-85) which are all reasonably priced.
 
odd jim said:
I really dont understand why people wouldnt want IS/VR on EVERY lens they own!!!!

I challenge the nay-sayers to name me one photographic situation, even at high shutter speeds, where a steadier frame would not be an advantage in getting the better end result?

Landscapes - check (invaluable on my 18-135 in normal light, eliminating the need for tripod in anything other than night shots)

Motorsport - check. My 55-250 IS is excellent for panning with IS, noticably sharper images at the high tele end.

Portraits - check. Shaper results and far more able to use natural light

Equestrian - check. Even at high shutter speeds it eliminates camera shake at the high end of the 55-250.

I could go on but if you havnt got the point now you wont!!

...and as for cost, it only seems an expensive 'option' on the L series lenses, there are plenty of nicely priced EFS lenses with supurb IS built in as standard (17-55, 18-135, 15-85) which are all reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Jim :thumbs:

But this debate has gone way beyond the merely sensible. I'm thinking of having all my lenses set into large concrete blocks. It's the only way you know :D
 
:lol:
 
odd jim said:
I really dont understand why people wouldnt want IS/VR on EVERY lens they own!!!!

I challenge the nay-sayers to name me one photographic situation, even at high shutter speeds, where a steadier frame would not be an advantage in getting the better end result?

Landscapes - check (invaluable on my 18-135 in normal light, eliminating the need for tripod in anything other than night shots)

Motorsport - check. My 55-250 IS is excellent for panning with IS, noticably sharper images at the high tele end.

Portraits - check. Shaper results and far more able to use natural light

Equestrian - check. Even at high shutter speeds it eliminates camera shake at the high end of the 55-250.

I could go on but if you havnt got the point now you wont!!

...and as for cost, it only seems an expensive 'option' on the L series lenses, there are plenty of nicely priced EFS (and EF) lenses with supurb IS built in as standard (17-55, 18-135, 15-85) which are all reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

The OP is looking specifically at a 70-200.... look at the prices and tell me there is only a little difference in cost. At higher shutter speeds it's only the pixel peepers that are going to tell the difference in sharpness.

I don't feel strongly over this subject and have an 17-50 IS lens for walkabout. But decided to save many hundreds of pounds when buying my 70-200 because IS was not necessary for my use.

PS. I use a tripod for landscape and portrait work etc...
 
Gordon Scott said:
Interesting thread this one with people assuming the OP is shooting what they do a bit... Clearly an IS lens will produce less visible camera shake at a slower shutter speeds than non-IS. But, there is a serious cost to get IS and unless you have a large wallet dedicated to camera kit, which there are few people on here with, then you have to weigh up the additional cost to the alternatives. I shoot dogs and horses in action with my 70-200 F2.8, IS is pointless as I need to shoot at 1/250 anyway as the subjects move fast and erratically! The extra money I save by not investing in IS will go on a nice wide angle zoom when I've got enough in the camera budget.

This brings you back to what is the OP going to be taking photos of?
Click to expand...

I agree this thread has got a bit daft, but I certainly agree with you Gordon that we really need to hear from the OP about what sort of photography he does and whether IS is really significant to him in most situations and therefore worth the extra money.

You say though, that you shoot horses and dogs with a 70-200 lens at a shutter speed of 1/250th , which is only barely the reciprocal of the lens focal length in safe hand holding terms. I can well envisage situations where 1/250th may well be enough to freeze subject action but still not fast enough to prevent cameras hake , particularly when working quickly, as I imagine you must.

I can only see advantages for you in using a stabilised lens. :shrug:
 
trencheel303 said:
Heaven help you two who have suggested that IS on a 70-200 isn't a necessity. May the God's smite you for that!
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you talk a cretinous wretch, being polite.

Two people have offered you good advice, one who knows photography inside out and one who is not far behind.Both offer valuable help and advice,neither have ever had a bad word to say about anyone,IIRC.

Your comments and attitude comes across as being rather like a spoiled little boy, that is why you get derision from others who are not so polite as the two gentlemen in question.

Put bluntly, as is my way. Stop posting *******s, listen/read what others say, others who are far more capable than you, and learn.


:)
 
CT said:
I agree this thread has got a bit daft, but I certainly agree with you Gordon that we really need to hear from the OP about what sort of photography he does and whether IS is really significant to him in most situations and therefore worth the extra money.

You say though, that you shoot horses and dogs with a 70-200 lens at a shutter speed of 1/250th , which is only barely the reciprocal of the lens focal length in safe hand holding terms. I can well envisage situations where 1/250th may well be enough to freeze subject action but still not fast enough to prevent cameras hake , particularly when working quickly, as I imagine you must.

I can only see advantages for you in using a stabilised lens. :shrug:
Click to expand...

1/250 is on the limit that I like to hand hold and is also the limit on capturing motion in the subject without dumping lots of images because of erratic movements. I agree this is on this margin where an IS lens could begin to help, but the main quality issue I have however is with ISO generated noise at 3200 when shooting dogs indoors, so if I had a few hundred £ spare might move up to a D700.
 
ok, i'll add a bit more i forgot in one of my last posts.. I used to own a Tamron 70-200 f\2.8, i looked at the original canon equivalent with IS. At the time i couldn't afford the canon. However, the guy who i work with owns one. We had the same bodies and settings, but every time he came up with the sharper shots. I shoot equestrian events both in and outdoor, and theatre shows\events. I think judging by my experiences i will find IS very very useful!
 
Here's a good example of where IS is just invaluable to me...

Sat in a hide working through the typical reserve hide slit with the camera on a tripod and gimbal. 7D with 500mm F4L and 1.4X TC (700mm). IS was enabled as it always is. I was actually focused on a Kingfisher perch with BIF flights being the furthest thing from my mind when without warning this Heron took off from concelament in the reeds to my left.

What followed was a mad panicky swing of the camers and some hastily fired shots. The following shots owe much more to the 7D AF system and IS than they do to me - much as I'd like to be able to tell you differently. :D

4336_20535768334c169e056be1b.jpg


4336_10219945224c0524a8532a5.jpg


4336_7724740274c0524a574184.jpg


The fastest shutter speed in this sequence was 1/320th - the slowest was 1/200th. (Shooting in AV Mode)
 
tdcist said:
ok, i'll add a bit more i forgot in one of my last posts.. I used to own a Tamron 70-200 f\2.8, i looked at the original canon equivalent with IS. At the time i couldn't afford the canon. However, the guy who i work with owns one. We had the same bodies and settings, but every time he came up with the sharper shots. I shoot equestrian events both in and outdoor, and theatre shows\events. I think judging by my experiences i will find IS very very useful!
Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when someone comes up with a more convincing argument for IS... I guess I'll have to do a side by side one day to see if it is more important than the ISO issue! Doesn't make it any cheaper though :( and I'm not convinced my customers will notice the difference...
 
Gordon Scott said:
Don't you just hate it when someone comes up with a more convincing argument for IS... I guess I'll have to do a side by side one day to see if it is more important than the ISO issue! Doesn't make it any cheaper though :( and I'm not convinced my customers will notice the difference...
Click to expand...

sorry.... Didnt mean to make things any more difficult lol
 
IS or not, I think it's just quite likely that the Tamron was the poorer lens, optically! IS may have helped make the images sharper, or it may not!
 
Maybe... but this was no cheap Tamron either!!! lol
 
I know what the Tamron 70-200 is, and I also know that both Canon 70-200s are better optically.

To assume that the images were sharper because of IS seems rather ridiculous to me, unless shutter speeds were very low.
 
You haven't got anything to apologise for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top