Does the IS on 70-200 f2.8 makes a big difference?

chouglez

chouglez

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,817
Edit My Images
No
Just trying to decide between the Non-IS and IS version and a bit confused :thinking: :gag: so thought about seeking help from you all!
 
Oh yes. I've had some shots saved by the IS, the only thing (with my photography) that will let them down, is movement by people rather than camera shake.
 
depends on what you are going to use the lens for...

what are you going to use the lens for?
 
i thought that the IS could only help with camera shake and not stabilze the actual moving objects you are trying to capture. please correct me if im wrong :)

natjag said:
Oh yes. I've had some shots saved by the IS, the only thing (with my photography) that will let them down, is movement by people rather than camera shake.
Click to expand...
 
Some reports are that the IS's image quality isn't as good as the non IS due to the 23 elements in 18 groups whereas the the Non IS is 18 elements in 14 groups and therefor less glass for the light to go through. I've just ordered the non IS because i'll be shooting sports where the shutter will be well over 1/600.
 
Yeah i'v also heard that the image quality isn't quite as good on the IS version.

I have the non IS version, very happy with it, excellent lens. For me it was more of an issue of money when deciding IS or non-IS. I just decided that over £300 was a bit much just for IS.

I tend to use mine at higher shutterspeeds anyway, mostly in daylight or sunlight so IS really isn't usefull to me for this lens anyway.
 
I had both versions at the same time whilst changing over. The non-IS is marginally sharper when shooting test charts but real world usage and it's not easy to distinguish them. The bokeh from the IS version is slightly different (smoother) but only really likely to be noticed when comparing shots side by side.
Finally, the IS version is about "half a tin of beans" heavier.....not much in percentage terms.

There's quite a premium to pay for the IS and if you need IS, then you pay it...if you don't, then don't.

Bob
 
ikeaaxel said:
i thought that the IS could only help with camera shake and not stabilze the actual moving objects you are trying to capture. please correct me if im wrong :)
Click to expand...

Okey Kokey, IMO youre wrong. :)

I own one of these, and imo the IS helps stabilize the moving object, for me 99% of the shots i take with it are panning shots and the IS locks onto the car/bike/sheep allowing my panning to not be 100% accurate and still get sharp results.
 
blinkerz said:
I chose the Is version simply cause the weather isnt too good in uk so didnt want to be limited, also IS version is weather sealed..
Click to expand...

So is the Non-IS version [and the f/4 versions too IIRC].

I chose the IS version because I couldn't find a non-IS version when I was looking around. It's bleeding heavy!
 
Darryn said:
Okey Kokey, IMO youre wrong. :)

I own one of these, and imo the IS helps stabilize the moving object, for me 99% of the shots i take with it are panning shots and the IS locks onto the car/bike/sheep allowing my panning to not be 100% accurate and still get sharp results.
Click to expand...

That's nothing to do with the IS - it's for lens/camera/user movement only, and is independent of the focus system - which is what is locking on for you.

Re the original question - if you are going to be in situations where you be shooting at less than 1/300 (to be safe), for example inside, you will need the IS to get sharp shots at 200mm.
 
WeddingHack said:
That's nothing to do with the IS - it's for lens/camera/user movement only, and is independent of the focus system - which is what is locking on for you.

Re the original question - if you are going to be situations where you be shooting at less than 1/300 (to be safe), for example inside, you will need the IS to get sharp shots at 200mm.
Click to expand...

I think 1/300 is almost ultra safe. You can get away with shooting much lower that that.. but it all depends on what your shooting. If your doing indoor sports i.e. basketball or something like that, IS is useless.. But for handheld portraits (with no lighting ect), it will come into its own then.
 
Better safe than sorry :)

The longer the lens, the more camera shake is amplified as the front element moves more in relation to the body, so the 1/focal length rule doesn't apply so well.

With the IS you can shoot handheld at 1/60th at 200mm - no chance of doing that with the non-IS version.
 
ikeaaxel said:
i thought that the IS could only help with camera shake and not stabilze the actual moving objects you are trying to capture. please correct me if im wrong :)
Click to expand...
Oh yes. I've had some shots saved by the IS, the only thing (with my photography) that will let them down, is movement by people rather than camera shake.
Click to expand...

Thats correct it will only help with camera shake. If your photographing moving people you will still get a blurred picture (at least the person). Thats why I say the only thing that will let them down is movement by people, I should say people moving in the picture. Hope that makes it clear what I was trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top