IS or NON IS

sharpcroft

sharpcroft

Suspended / Banned
Messages
219
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Seen various arguments for and against.
Saving for a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to replace my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 primarily to shoot football but also for wildlife etc when on holiday, so, am i better getting the IS version or NON IS version?
 
Should mention, i can just stretch to the IS version with the Canon cash back offer so should i just plump for that, any body used the IS version for sports with the IS on?
Any advantage (panning with players as they run past etc?) or is it better to have it turned off for football?
 
For footy no need for IS even if panning as players run past, your shutter speeds will be high and IS only helps camera shake not freezing action
 
Ok thanks, now any body used both of these lenses can give me an opinion as to whether the upgrade (Sigma - Canon) is worth it?
 
I opted for the IS version of the canon 70-200 f2.8.... I came to the conclusion that i didn't really need the IS, but, although i didn't need it, if i didn't have it i 'couldn't' use it. I like that if i do need it any time, i've got it....

I will say that although it is not usually needed for sports due to high shutter speeds, it can be very useful when panning at lower shutter speeds, so, motorsports, cycling etc

Also it can be helpful for steadying your subject in the viewfinder when at 200mm or longer with a tc on.

So to those that say it's not needed, i say maybe but it certainly isn't useless...
 
Cheers Steve thanks for your input, and your thinking is the same as mine, if i've got it i can turn it off.
 
Seeing as you have a 70-200 already would it not be a better bet for you to look at something like a 300mm f4? and get a bit more reach and also isolate the players a bit more....
 
just looking through gary's website..... great stuff....
 
Steve75 said:
Seeing as you have a 70-200 already would it not be a better bet for you to look at something like a 300mm f4? and get a bit more reach and also isolate the players a bit more....
Click to expand...

I've seen results from a Canon compared to the Sigma and i was blown away at the difference, 70-200 suits me as its more a hobby than a proper job (though it does pay sometimes), i just wanted the best 70-200 i could afford
 
So now you have the torment of mk1 or mk2! lol I'd love a mk2 but my bank statements say NOoooooo! For me it's just fun too, with an occasional paid gig.
 
I was torn between 100-400mm & 70-200mm f2.8is Mk1, I went for the 70-200. I mainly shoot Motorsport & some football etc. my thinking behind this was that if I had the 100-400mm that's all I could use it for but with the 70-200 I could use it as a good all round lens, most of the circuits I have used it at it has been ok. I opted for a 2x extender if I ever need it so basically I have most things covered.

What you will find though is that everyone has their own opinions on lenses & stuff, so it could get confusing but the set up I have works well for me

Have a look on my Facebook page for examples with the 70-200mm 2.8 Mk1.

Col
 
colspics said:
I was torn between 100-400mm & 70-200mm f2.8is Mk1, I went for the 70-200. I mainly shoot Motorsport & some football etc. my thinking behind this was that if I had the 100-400mm that's all I could use it for but with the 70-200 I could use it as a good all round lens, most of the circuits I have used it at it has been ok. I opted for a 2x extender if I ever need it so basically I have most things covered.

What you will find though is that everyone has their own opinions on lenses & stuff, so it could get confusing but the set up I have works well for me

Have a look on my Facebook page for examples with the 70-200mm 2.8 Mk1.

Col
Click to expand...

PS I don't use the is at all for the bikes or sport, it slows af I find
 
Im looking at the MKII 70-200, i have sigma 1.4 and 2.0x extenders so as long as they work with the Canon (autofocus?) i think that will be a good combo, extra length and IS when needed, fast, 2.8 for football
 
sharpcroft said:
Im looking at the MKII 70-200, i have sigma 1.4 and 2.0x extenders so as long as they work with the Canon (autofocus?) i think that will be a good combo, extra length and IS when needed, fast, 2.8 for football
Click to expand...

All sounds good to me, the 2x Canon extender I have work with af so no reason why yours shouldn't. Go for it :)
 
Now for my next post in equipment "Anybody tried a Sigma extender on a Canon lens? :)
 
Dont think the Sigma convertors will work with Canon lenses but check first, it might be physically impossible to fit one to the other so dont try it unless you are 100% sure first.

Good glass will last you a lifetime so buy the best you can afford.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Dont think the Sigma convertors will work with Canon lenses but check first, it might be physically impossible to fit one to the other so dont try it unless you are 100% sure first.

Good glass will last you a lifetime so buy the best you can afford.
Click to expand...

Cannot find a definitive answer regarding the converters, I cannot think why they wouldnt, Sigma lenses fit canon bodies, sigma converters fit canon bodies, the lens end of a converter is a copy of the fitting on the body so i would have thought that if the sigma converter works with the sigma 70-200 and the sigma 70-200 works with the converter and canon body then the canon 70-200 should work, you follow lol.
Thing is, it will make a big difference cos if the sigma's dont work with the canon they would need to be replaced which is another expense, in which case i would prob end up with the non-is plus canon 1.4 and 2.0x converters.

Phew, i've exhausted myself!
 
For those interested, i emailed Sigma and have received the following reply

"Morning Darren,

The 70-200 MK II should be fully functional with both converters. It will autofocus on both.

Kind Regards"

Exactly the answer i was looking for,

Sharpcroft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top