Image Stabilisation or Constant Aperture

[social_lurker]

I'd like to replace my bog standard Canon 90-300mm lens but keep a similar sort of range to go my 400d.

Am I better to go for something with a constant aperture e.g the Canon 200mm F2.8L and then possibly get a converter to get a bit of added reach

OR

something image stabilised e.g. Canon 70-300mm IS USM

I take a wide range of shots, but prefer watersports photography (hence the need for the range), but F5.6 is often too slow on grey days/evenings to get the shutter speed without compromising on noise.

So given the option: Would YOU go for IS or constant aperture?

 

[mmcp42]

I'd go for IS every time
especially on longer focal lengths
the difference is worth at least a couple of stops

 

[RobertP]

If you shoot in low light then a bigger aperture will give you a faster shutter and stop movement of the subject blur - but without IS it could still be a blurry image due to camera shake.

IS can stop camera shake but if the light is low and you only have f5.6 you will still lose shots to subject movement. So specifically for low light water sports you'd probably be better with a 2.8 and a monopod or tripod. Ideally of course you'd go for 2.8 and IS

 

[dod]

IS isn't that much of a benefit for sports with erratic movement so I'd go for aperture.

 

[Canon Bob]

I'd go for IS every time
especially on longer focal lengths
the difference is worth at least a couple of stops

IS may be worth a couple of stops when you're balancing it against exposure but those stops are nowhere to be seen when it comes to subject isolation due to narrower depth of focus. Larger apertures will also help with the automatic focussing when poor light reduces the contrast between subject and background.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong though, it's just that I don't happen to share it.

Bob

 

[Chappers]

I think it all depends on how you are going to use the lens. If it's always going to be used with a support, then probably I'd agree with Bob. On the other hand if you are going to hand hold the lens then the additional "stabilisation" effect may be more important.

It's a difficult decision

 

[dazzajl]

Moving subjects, low light = spend your cash on a fast aperture.

Still subject, low light = spend on IS where you get more stops for your cash.

If in doubt and if you can, get both.

 

[dolomitefan]

Grab yourself a 70-200 2.8 IS and a converter then you have it all covered, just the small issue of cost to consider though. The 75-300 is not one of Canon's better lenses. If you want to go a bit cheaper then seek out a 70-210 like mine which is actually not a bad lens and reasonably fast compared to say the 100-300 that replaced it. No IS but if you're shooting action you'll be wanting higher shutter speeds anyway.