to IS or not to IS?

Curlay

Curlay

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
67
Location
Sydney, Australia
Car(s)
2004 Mitsubishi Lancer
Hey folks,

I've recently been considering buying an L lens for my 400d, specifically, the 70-200 f4L

However, not being made of money (hence not getting the f2.8) i've been considering whether purchasing the IS version of this lens is worth it or not.

I don't plan on doing too much photography in low light with the lens. i'm mainly trying to get some motorsport photography (although, isn't everybody on here? :p) and was wondering whether IS would be suitable for my needs. i mean, couldn't I just bump up the ISO in lower light situations? i'm sure it's not as good as using IS, but if it saves me half the price, i'm willing to live with it.

Opinions please.

P.S. currently I have the twin lens kit's 75-300 f4.5-5.6 lens, so just about anything is a step up from that.

P.P.S. Sorry if this has been covered before, It's late and i'm too tired to do a search
 
apparently the 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is a very good lens. as close to L glass you can get without paying for it.

its around ?300 used

ok its not actual L glass and its not got the constant aperture or the build quality but for the money its awesome. even has a pan mode for the IS.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--reviewfor the review

canons IS is highly regarded..it'll give you so much more leg room than simple ISO adjustments and at 200mm i think you'll find it to be most useful.

defo check out that 70-300mm IS though, its only a consumer grade lens but it makes use of a few special lens elements like those used in L glass.
 
I have the 70-200 f4L (non IS) and I love it, I have IS on my 28-135, and it doesn't help THAT much. Looking at the price difference, I'd say save your money. IS doesn't do a great deal in motorsport I don't think. Even if it has a panning mode, panning is a smooth motion and I doubt you'd benefit a great deal from having IS.
 
When shooting motorsports, or any sports for that matter, IS/VR makes zero difference. IS is for static subjects in low/questionable light, and really has no use in sports photography. What you need is the large aperture to get the shutter speeds required to freeze motion. (For panning, IS isn't useful either.)

Now, you mentioned not being made of money and that rules out the f/2.8L - why? I know locally, the 2.8L is only $100 more than the f/4L IS. Heck, some places charge more for the f/4L IS because it's a newer lens.
 
I have a 70-200L IS f4. For double the money of the non-IS is it worth it? No. But it does come in useful when in overcast weathers and shotting static. f2.8 is just too large and heavy to keep in my hiking gear.


BerserkerCatSplat said:
When shooting motorsports, or any sports for that matter, IS/VR makes zero difference. IS is for static subjects in low/questionable light, and really has no use in sports photography. What you need is the large aperture to get the shutter speeds required to freeze motion. (For panning, IS isn't useful either.)
Click to expand...

There is a mode 2 on IS for stablising the vertical axis, and it helps if your panning motion is not smooth and start moving up and down.
 
tianluo said:
There is a mode 2 on IS for stablising the vertical axis, and it helps if your panning motion is not smooth and start moving up and down.
Click to expand...

Getting a consistent panning motion is not difficult and requires only a modicum of practice to get right. Why pay hundreds of dollars for a function that you'll outgrow in an afternoon of shooting?

For static subjects in low light, IS/VR is excellent. If I shot birds, it'd be great. The OP is interested in motorsports, so IS is not worth paying extra for.
 
Concider the pictures you've already taken without IS: are they all perfectly sharp, or do you often come home with slightly blurry pictures? That's all you really need to think about. If you suffer from blurry pictures, get IS. If all your pictures are sharp - why bother with IS?
 
IS doesn't give you pin sharp pictures anyway, it just de-blurs them a bit, seeing as the lens is floating around and there's movement, if you do some 1:1 pixel peeping, you'll see some motion blur.

Well, I do on my 28-135, it could just be because that uses the first incarnation of IS.


tianluo said:
I have a 70-200L IS f4. For double the money of the non-IS is it worth it? No. But it does come in useful when in overcast weathers and shotting static. f2.8 is just too large and heavy to keep in my hiking gear.
Click to expand...

I agree about the size and weight of the 2.8, the f4 is a lovely lens, plus the zoom ring on the f4 is excellent, it's really tight on the 2.8.
 
Now i'm not going to be sentimental and talk about whether IS is worth extra money or not, cause it is (and has always been) rather personal.

What you need to know is that both 70-200 IS lenses (f/4 and f/2.8) have different designs compared to their non-is twins. You can dig up some lens schemes and see for yourself. Now what i've read in many forums is that the f/4 IS is a very good lens and a noticeable step forward in iq compared to the non-is f/4 (with the is off). Now IS could give you about 2-3 extra stops when handheld.

The other side of the coin: if you use a tripod it does not matter (actually id does in this case, cause the new design f/4 IS would be sharper anyway). If you shoot moving subject IS is almost no use.

I've spent much time choosing between the two (and considering the non-IS f/2.8 as it costs about the same as f/4 IS here), but ended up buying a second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 just because it was one hell of a bargain. It's as good (if not better) as the non-is canon 2.8 up to ~135mm or so, and it's black.

Hmm.. i find myself pixel peeping again...
Look, i'll tell you this. I've had my share of exotic and less exotic glass, fast primes and top zooms, and it just does not make your photos look better :D And it doesn't make you feel better either. So at the end of the day just listen to your inner voice.
 
markryder said:
Concider the pictures you've already taken without IS: are they all perfectly sharp, or do you often come home with slightly blurry pictures? That's all you really need to think about. If you suffer from blurry pictures, get IS. If all your pictures are sharp - why bother with IS?
Click to expand...

I like how owning a telephoto for a whopping two hours has given you enough insight to give nonsense advice in an internet forum. So, go ahead. Tell us how IS will help freeze motion in sports photography (therefore reducing subject blur). I'd love to know.
 
You're better off putting the money you would spend on IS into faster glass without IS, a lower aperture will let you acheive quicker shutter speeds and freeze the motion, if you have a slow lens with IS all you are able to do is take a longer exposure while the lens steadies itself, which will still be blurry if you're shooting motion... unless you've got a really shakey hand - if that's the case IS might be worthwhile.
 
it all depends on how you shoot. I use IS on a telephoto for panning shots of cars and it adds a great deal, which seems to be different than the average experience here. with the 100-400 I have, at 400mm it is inherently shakier since you are more zoomed in so much further. the benefits of IS become more apparent at those distances. it makes a big difference in panning. at 100% crop the details of frames with IS are significantly crisper. this of course requires you do a decent job of tracking anyway. but the IS is a nice feature to have, and since that's the question: in my experience taking car pictures...if you can make it work on a budget, I would go for it. very handy.
 
I bought a 70-200 f 2.8 a few years ago and have always regretted not stepping up to the IS. I do a lot of shooting in really bad light and IS is allows you to do so much more. Definitely consult this page about it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

I guess if you shoot all in bright light and/or know you will only spend a certain amount of money then it might be wise to save for something else, to put IS on the lens you use the most (for me my most used combo is the 24-105 f4IS on a 5d) but if you're looking over the long haul and will be putting in some serious money to build a serious kit then go with the IS. You won't regret it.
 
As far as I can see there have been two users in this thread thus far who know what they're talking about regarding IS.

Up until January of this year, I'd never regarded IS as something worthwhile. It was much more costly and it could hardly be 'that' effective. I was shooting the Autosport International show, indoors, getting light readings of 1/6 @f2.8 @ ISO1600. Without IS these shots would have been impossible to handhold, especially at the long end of the zoom. Every shot I took at 1/6 came out not just sharp. But PIN sharp. That is an amazing feat considering I have very shakey hands.

I've recently splashed out on 300mm F4 L IS and a 40D which features a Liveview mode. Using Liveview, with IS off you can see the movement much clearer than through the viewfinder of camerashake. The instant the IS turned on, its like taking Valium in Metal Gear Solid. It just instantly gets very smooth and steady. I've ensured my next purchase will be my second L and second IS lense.

Why else would Canon equip their best of the best 300mm f2.8 L IS with it ? I think they know a little bit more about IS and lense technology than all of us combined.

It's also worth noting from the 300 F4 L IS manual, that with IS on, you can shoot at 1/30th safely. I've gotten down to a consistent 1/15th at 300mm that are all sharp.

Go the IS route, you won't regret it. Pity about the haters who are jealous because they made the wrong choice ...
 
well, I went down to the local camera store today, initially just hunting for prices, and ended up trying out 13 lenses.

But in short, I think IS is definitely worthwhile. It seems very powerful to me, at least in still shots, so it looks like i'm gonna go the f4L IS.
The store didn't have the Canon 2.8L IS, but had a similar sigma lens (the 70-200 2.8 DG HSM) which was nice, but I just wasn't a real fan.

Pics:
f4L, sans IS:
2240922643_8452445f6b_b.jpg

(taken at f4 @ 200mm 1/125 ISO 400)

f4L IS:
2240923115_0a7eaeed85_b.jpg

(taken at f4 @ 200mm 1/80 ISO 100)

and while we were having fun, the 70-300 DO IS USM(i'm NOT getting this, too expensive, and it weighs a metric tonne! :lol:):
2241717542_b165d92e6f_b.jpg

(taken at f5.6 @ 300mm 1/15 ISO 100)

oh yeah, one more thing, if IS equates to 3 stops lower (or something like that), then wouldn't the f4L equal around f2.8? or am I wrong on that front?

Thank you all for your help in deciding on this, it's good to have such a friendly and helpful photography community around.:thumbup:
 
Curlay said:
well, I went down to the local camera store today, initially just hunting for prices, and ended up trying out 13 lenses.

But in short, I think IS is definitely worthwhile. It seems very powerful to me, at least in still shots, so it looks like i'm gonna go the f4L IS.
The store didn't have the Canon 2.8L IS, but had a similar sigma lens (the 70-200 2.8 DG HSM) which was nice, but I just wasn't a real fan.

Pics:
f4L, sans IS:
]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2240922643_8452445f6b_b.jpg[/IMG]
(taken at f4 @ 200mm 1/125 ISO 400)

f4L IS:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/2240923115_0a7eaeed85_b.jpg[/IMG]
(taken at f4 @ 200mm 1/80 ISO 100)

and while we were having fun, the 70-300 DO IS USM(i'm NOT getting this, too expensive, and it weighs a metric tonne! :lol:):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2389/2241717542_b165d92e6f_b.jpg[/IMG]
(taken at f5.6 @ 300mm 1/15 ISO 100)

oh yeah, one more thing, if IS equates to 3 stops lower (or something like that), then wouldn't the f4L equal around f2.8? or am I wrong on that front?

Thank you all for your help in deciding on this, it's good to have such a friendly and helpful photography community around.:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Your not far wrong, it will give you hand holding ability to a lower speed but 1/10 and 1/15 won't freeze action or movement.
 
Think of IS as having a kind of built-in tripod. It helps reduce camera shake by a certain amount, but doesn't let you freeze action any better.
 
I'd say go with the IS. Why:

- it is useful in "super" panning shots (that's why mode 2 is there)
- it gets you other images in low light

In terms of shooting a frozen image can sometime seem too artificial - think of pictures of helicopter blades frozen as an example.

As far as IQ there is no difference b/w the 2.8 and f4 versions.
 
johnr said:
As far as IQ there is no difference b/w the 2.8 and f4 versions.
Click to expand...

All the tests I've read have stated the F4 IS version is the sharpest of the bunch - even beating the silly-priced F2.8 IS. But it's not by much, so no one will probably ever notice :p

And as far as IS goes: it does work. Atleast that's my experience. I shot a few years without IS, and as many as 30-40 pictures out of 100 could come out blurry. When I switched to a camera with IS, I got maybe 10-15 blurry pictures out of 100. But that's me & my shake'y hands...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top