Canon 70-200mm ... IS or NON IS... that is the question???

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
Quite simple really... if I get a 70-200mm ...

Do I really need IS??? I have it on my 24-105mm... I have it on all the time when I hand hold... my pics are fine... but that said... I generally dont have issues with low light... and if I do... dusk landscapes i'd use a tripod all the time anyway... I know the rule and tend to stick to a shutter speed thats greater than 1/focal length anyway.

I got rid of an old 75-300mm and have nothing longer than the 24-105mm.

I use a canon EOS5d mk 1 and have no intention of upgrading... It's the perfect camera for the bulk of my photography... however I have a dilema...

do I buy the non IS version and get the 1.4x teleconverter too... or do I go for the IS version... do I really need the IS... I know only I can finally decide... but other peoples thoughts and wisdom would be appreciated.

BTW it is my intention to buy a crop sensor camera in the fullness of time to use with the 70-200mm for bird / wildlife and sport... which I dont do much of anyway... but id like too!!!

Any picture comparisons...
 
I have the non IS version and love it! I do get a few pics that are out of focus, but always take several anyway. I took my 55-250 IS out today for the first time in ages and only had one pic that was unusable (from 236) OK, some of the others (well most actually!) will be deleted, but I forgot just how good the IS is on a zoom!
I guess the answer is, if you can afford the 70-200 IS then go for it!
 
Get the IS, big old lump of a lens to handhold steady and to be honest 200mm will be at least 50% too short for birds even on a crop sensor
 
Last edited:
I mulled this over for a while, I bought the IS version. I looked through teh viewfinder at 200 and found that it wobbled about so much with IS off that I needed IS. Only you can answer if you "need" IS. I didnt want to spend less on the non IS to find I needed IS after all, your call.
I still use 125th as a minimum and get the odd shaky one but I'm an old sod so again its your call.
Matt
 
I'm stating the obvious here, but you can always switch IS off if you have it to start with. It doesn't really work the other way round though :)

Seriously, unless cost is a over-riding factor *always* go for IS if it's available. It really is worth having.
 
I would say go for the IS, and save for the teleconverter.
You can add a teleconverter, but you cannot add IS

I have the 100-400 L IS, officially it doesn't support IS with a TC, but seems to work fine on mine (although it is possible that my TC doesn't report that it is there)
 
Last edited:
Bill Roberts said:
Seriously, unless cost is a over-riding factor *always* go for IS if it's available. It really is worth having.
Click to expand...
+1.

I have the 70-200 F4L non IS. I'd prefer the IS version, in fact, I'd prefer the 2.8 but... Whilst it is good in good light, I don't get it out in poor light as it is too slow to take good pics.

To me, the other thing to remember is that IS is more valuable on the longer lens. You need good light to be consistently over 1/320th at 200mm on a crop sensor...
 
It seems i should go for t is version then! I never realised we all relied so much on technology so much... However if its there why not! I guess it would improve on sharpness of shots even at 1/320 at 200 mm?
 
I have used the non IS, but not the IS. If I'm honest at 200mm I was panning and thought the shots were sharp enough.

However, that's not to say that if I had a whirl with the IS model I wouldn't be smitten!

Zoe
 
MatBin said:
I mulled this over for a while, I bought the IS version. I looked through teh viewfinder at 200 and found that it wobbled about so much with IS off that I needed IS. Only you can answer if you "need" IS. I didnt want to spend less on the non IS to find I needed IS after all, your call.
I still use 125th as a minimum and get the odd shaky one but I'm an old sod so again its your call.
Matt
Click to expand...

As a 52 year old, I couldn't agree more. Whether to IS or not to IS largely depends on how strong your arms are and how steady your hands are.

I use the Canon 55-250mm lens a lot and, at my age, I really need the 4 stop IS to get steady shots.
 
Just a thought, as you are using full frame you won't need such high shutter speeds as the crop users anyway, and you've already got very good high ISO capabilities.

What are you shooting? If it's motorsport or moving wildlife then I'm not sure IS would help that much.

Just playing devil's advocate :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Just a thought, as you are using full frame you won't need such high shutter speeds as the crop users anyway, and you've already got very good high ISO capabilities.

What are you shooting? If it's motorsport or moving wildlife then I'm not sure IS would help that much.

Just playing devil's advocate :)
Click to expand...

It has 2 stage IS, so usefull even if panning :)
Why wouldnt you need such a high shutter speed if on FF as on crop, the image on the sensor is the same (apart from crop losing the outer edges), the middle bit is still going to be wobbling about just as much regardless of sensor size.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
It has 2 stage IS, so usefull even if panning :)
Why wouldnt you need such a high shutter speed if on FF as on crop, the image on the sensor is the same (apart from crop losing the outer edges), the middle bit is still going to be wobbling about just as much regardless of sensor size.

Matt
Click to expand...

Stand corrected about the IS modes :)

As for shutter speeds without IS, handheld one should aim for a minimum shutter speed equal to the focal length to avoid camera shake. 200mm can be shot at 1/200 on full frame, but would need 1/320 on crop due to the 1.6x crop factor making an effective 320mm focal length at the long end.
 
^ I'm not sure you do need to actually multiply up that law like you suggest... as I sort of see what Mat is saying in a twisted scientific way... but im no optics expert... and we are only talking one stop anyway... I'm thinking I might go for the IS...

But not sure... I dont see that I use the long end too much and its sorta for general interest, travel, street photography i'll be shooting... with the odd bit of sport etc... really just looking to have the option of 300mm reach if I need it... but im not really a type of photographer... I like to try a bit of everything!

I guess a bit of me just thinks that will I actually benefit in my photography enough for the extra £350!
 
i have a non is one too and its a great tool. Makes people look better than they really do in real life (lol)

I use it hand held 90% of the time at weddings
 
I would get the IS version. I find my hands are just too wobbly to hold long lenses without stabilisation.
 
+1 for the IS esp if you can afford it and the new 70-200IS mkII is supposed to be an absolute cracker of a lens
 
I have just upgraded from my 70-200 F4L to a 70-200 F4L IS. I didn't do it for reasons of money (it cost me, of course), size and weight (the two are so close as to be identical) or handling.

I did it for image quality. Not because the 70-200 is a bad lens, but because camera shake ruins image quality. There have been several occasions in the past year when I've been using the non-IS 70-200 and ended up having to put it away because it was getting too dark, switching to the 24-105IS instead.
 
I have the f4 non IS version, purely as I wanted something that was lightweight. However I would now never purchase a telephoto without IS, because it's so useful, and my hands are not that steady...

Depending on what you use it for (I use mine for portraits so the flash helps steady the picture) I'd run with the IS version if you can afford it.

Steve
 
I would say only go non-IS if you are only going to use it on a tripod. If you are hand-holding, whatever your shutter speed is, you are going to get sharper results with 4-stops of extra steadiness. No?

I bought a 2nd-hand 70-200 f4 IS. I was so impressed with the IQ, a year later I bought the 100-400 IS. Even though it is the old 2 stop IS system, I find that the usefulness of the range for what I do (fishing action, nature and other outdoorsy stuff) means that the 100-400 gets 90% of the action and the poor 70-200 sits at home. I would put it back onto e-Bay if I wasn't just so damned fond of it.

Col
 
I have the non and shoot fine handheld for what I need. I tend not to shoot in terribly low light and a 1/200 or so and over my shots are fine. As an extra it's bloody sharp and the IQ is amazing too. If I shot in lower light situation I would want the is and also probably the f2.8!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top