IS or no IS?

A

ash400D

Suspended / Banned
Messages
39
Edit My Images
Yes
Bought my camera a few months back (400D) And im going to be doing alot of motocross photography, i only have the kit lens at the moment 18-55mm, and obviously i need to expand.

Now, im on a budget and can't really afford L lens' yet.

Speaking to a mate whos camera i've used, he has a 400D coupled with a 700-300mm IS lens and although its a joy to use, most of the pictures look very washed out.

He reccomends that i spend £400 on the same lens as his because IS is required for motosport photographer to allow you to get sharp images and reduce camera shake, which, the further you zoom, the more it is apparent in your photo's.

I dont really have the cash for that lens, and i've also read that because of the high shutter speeds usually used, camera shake isn't really an issue.

So do i pick up a Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm to get to grips with, or not bother and save for alot longer (which could be another 6 month) and buy an L lens..

Advice is much appreciated.

Ash
 
I use the 70-300mm IS lens you are talking about mate and its a great lens for starting out. I'm in the same sort of boat, I use mine for short circuit and road motorcycle racing. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a 70-200 L IS in the future but credit crunch is hitting hard :lol:

You'll see some examples of the lens in action on my Flickr, most of my shots have been taken with it... only real problem is that it can be a bit soft on the focus at 300mm but nothing extreme.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9525454@N04/

Hope this helps!
 
To wait or not to wait that is question, if you really want a L lens then saving for another 6 months is the way to go, if you decide on a lesser lens then wish you had waited you will have to start saving from scratch again, making you wait even longer.

Which L lens would appeal to you? or even the DO version of the 70-300 seems to be a excellent choice, it's all down to what you can save and how much patience you have Clicky here
 
Do your homework re the resale prices of any of the non-L glass - if you can find one that you can buy (perhaps a secondhand one) and then sell on later without losing too much of your initial outlay then that would be the way I would do it.

It's nice to be able to go straight for the top glass, but you'll miss loads of shots in the meantime whilst you save up and an "okay" pic is better than no pic at all ;)
 
ash400D said:
Bought my camera a few months back (400D) And im going to be doing alot of motocross photography, i only have the kit lens at the moment 18-55mm, and obviously i need to expand.

Now, im on a budget and can't really afford L lens' yet.

Speaking to a mate whos camera i've used, he has a 400D coupled with a 700-300mm IS lens and although its a joy to use, most of the pictures look very washed out.

He reccomends that i spend £400 on the same lens as his because IS is required for motosport photographer to allow you to get sharp images and reduce camera shake, which, the further you zoom, the more it is apparent in your photo's.

I dont really have the cash for that lens, and i've also read that because of the high shutter speeds usually used, camera shake isn't really an issue.

So do i pick up a Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm to get to grips with, or not bother and save for alot longer (which could be another 6 month) and buy an L lens..

Advice is much appreciated.

Ash
Click to expand...

Ash, just for the sake of clarity, IS does nothing to stabilise a moving image it will only help reduce the effects of camera shake.

The 70-300mm IS USM is a very capable lens even if it does have a tendency to be a bit soft at the long end. If the images produced by your friend's setup are washed out, I would suggest something else is going on other than a problem with the lens. The lens does have it's limitations however: slow AF, rotating front element and no FTM, but for your use I should imagine the slow AF would be the biggest drawback although not an insurmountable problem.

As regards the £400 price tag, that's a bit over the top from what I've seen. In fact within the last week or two I've seen it as low as £299. If you look on camerapricebuster.co.uk you'll get a good idea of the latest prices this lens can be bought for.
 
If you need IS, I would probably consider the 55-250 IS too.
 
Rent before you buy then you can decide for yourself it it's worth the money or worth the wait.
 
on the other hand if you dont need IS which i dont think you do seeing as your using fast shutter speeds anyway, you can get an L straight away :D The 70-200 f4L USM is about 350 s/h
 
Agree with Andrew
 
I don't have an IS lens & photograph quite alot of motorsport, I mainly use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which I've had for years! Works well, fast & quiet, nice wide 2.8 so fast shutter speeds aren't usually much of a problem & have never once thought that I'd be better off with an IS. L glass, then that's different & one day will get the 70-200 f2.8 L :)
 
andrewc said:
And in some cases you will be fighting against the IS system rather than working with it.
Click to expand...

thats exactly what i thought i mainly shoot kitesurfing and IS just gets annoying
 
Another option would be to get a cheap second hand zoom (I have a 75-300 USM in the for sale section, but my advice would still be the same if I didn't) which you can use whilst you save for the L glass, that way you get the shots and the best glass.

I mainly shoot motorsports and agree that you don't need IS, because you are using the slower shutter speeds to show motion, you don't want to stabilize it!
 
If your not looking to spend so much money the Sigma 70-300 APO is a fantastic lens. It was the first telephoto zoom I owned - Razor sharp and with fantastic colours - a real bargin.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Do your homework re the resale prices of any of the non-L glass - if you can find one that you can buy (perhaps a secondhand one) and then sell on later without losing too much of your initial outlay then that would be the way I would do it.

It's nice to be able to go straight for the top glass, but you'll miss loads of shots in the meantime whilst you save up and an "okay" pic is better than no pic at all ;)
Click to expand...


Thats exactly what i was going to say!

I also have a 18-55mm IS and a 70-300mm IS and maybe i'm just totally rubbish (or as steady as a rock! NOT!) but tbh i don't think the is makes that much difference on these lenses.

Anna
 
In my experience IS is most noticeable when going from a stabilised lens to a non stabilised one.

My walkabout lens is a 24-105 IS, when I shoot aircraft i use a non-IS 300. The camera shake always takes ages to get used to.
 
I have IS on the 18-55 and the 55-250. The 55-250, according to the docs, is able to adjust itself to a panning mode. I normally, unless tripod mounted, leave the IS on and it's not caused me problems with panning, but has allowed me to get shots that I wouldn't have been able to without it. I've never yet noticed the IS on the 18-55, but I'm sure it must have been used on occasion.
 
I have a canon 55-250 IS and have been very pleased with the results. I
managed to get some realy nice shots at the Chatsworth Rally with it.

I also have a Sigma 70-300 lens but prefer the results of the 55-250 IS

Nige
 
Just my tuppenyworth...

Go for the IS lens. If you find yourself in a situation where you're fighting it or don't want it, there's a switch to turn it off BUT if you have a non-IS lens, there's no switch to turn it ON if you need it. Not sure about the Canon IS lens but the (useless to you, I know but it's the only one I have) Nikon 70-300VR copes extremely well with panning with the VR switched on and the VR gives you 3-4 stops of extra handholdability over the non-VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top