IS or none IS canon 70-200mm

[Markandrew]

Which one do i buy the none IS lens is almost half the price of IS lens.
Would i be correct to say with none IS lens at say200 mm hand held you would not want to go below 1/250.
So what would be a safe shutter speed with IS lens at 200 mm.
Is there any truth in the none IS lens is slightly sharper.
Finaly i do like to use a tripod as much as poss, i take it IS would be of no use on tripod.
Many thanks
Mark

I trust IS means Image stabilizer

[cosmicma]

what about the 70 - 200 F2.8 L non IS ??
not much fifference in price to the F4 L IS and for my money faster glass is better than IS

just a thought....

[Markandrew]

I agree thanks will check prices

[rbarry]

Originally Posted by Markandrew

I agree thanks will check prices

I don't agree!

Sorry to put a fly in the ointment, but at 3 to 4 F stops of an advantage that IS offers, the 70-200 F4 IS is a blistering lens. The other advantage of the Canon IS system on this lens is the ability to switch to a secondary form of IS when being used for panning shots. This controls stabilisation in a single plane, be it in a horizontal or vertical plane (but not both at the same time), which is what you need when tracking fast moving subjects.

Admittedly, the F2.8 version would be better in low light situations, but that depends on what your intentions for the lens are. In normal daylight situations I have been very pleased with the F4 IS version, but appreciate that in dimly lit interiors the F2.8 would have an advantage if used to take an exposure using a tripod of a static subject .

If you intend to predominately use the lens mounted on a tripod then perhaps the F2.8 is the way to go. But, you will be surprised at just how effective IS has become, and you will be limiting yourself without it when having to go hand held. As in all potential lens purchase situations, take your camera with you to the store of your choice, and try the lens out on your camera. The staff will be used to customers doing this, so don't be afraid to try before you buy.

[ap4a]

If you want to shoot moving subjects then faster apertures are better than IS. F/2.8 with no IS will give a faster shutter speed than f/4 + IS. If you're shooting static or slow moving subjects that don't require faster shutter speeds then the IS becomes more useful.

[rbarry]

Originally Posted by ap4a

If you want to shoot moving subjects then faster apertures are better than IS. F/2.8 with no IS will give a faster shutter speed than f/4 + IS. If you're shooting static or slow moving subjects that don't require faster shutter speeds then the IS becomes more useful.

The difference in value between F2.8 and F4.0 is one full F stop. I agree that shooting at F2.8 will always give a faster shutter speed than the equivalent lens at F4.0. The point is that Image stabilisation will effectively give a 3 to 4 F stop advantage when hand held.

For example, lets say hand held on a given day using an F2.8 non IS 70-200mm lens fully open gives a shutter speed of 1/100 sec at a focal length of 200mm. The chances are your exposure is going to suffer from camera shake and not give a perfectly sharp image. The same conditions when using the F4 non IS equivalent lens would give a shutter speed value of 1/50 sec: an even worse result. The same conditions when applied to the F4 IS version of this lens would give a shutter speed of 1/50 sec, but an effective value of between 1/400sec to 1/800 sec, and more likely than not the sharpest image of the three.


If my maths is wrong I apologise, and I don't want to mislead the OP, or indeed upset anyone, but this is how I believe it to be.


Edit.
Reading this back, and I apologise if anyone has replied before I finish this addition to my post, I would like to add:
ap4a stated that a static or slow moving object would benefit from the IS F4 lens, but fast moving subjects would not. I would argue that in fast moving panned subjects that the images would be pretty much on a par with each other, as the secondary form of IS would give a lesser advantage, of say just 2 F stops. Admittedly, the F2.8 version will produce better bokeh, although I'm quite satisfied with the results the F4.0 produces.

Overall, for me, the benefits of the IS F4 version make for a more flexible tool, but the kingpin of them all is the recently released F2.8 IS 70-200mm ver 2.

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by rbarry

Edit.
Reading this back, and I apologise if anyone has replied before I finish this addition to my post, I would like to add:
ap4a stated that a static or slow moving object would benefit from the IS F4 lens, but fast moving subjects would not.

I'd read it again as I never said that anywhere. I said the "IS becomes more useful" with static or slow moving subjects (ie. more useful than the wider aperture). That's a far cry from saying that fast moving objects wouldn't benefit.

The fact is, 1 stop is a lot of light and can be the difference between 1/500s or 1/250s; and if 1/500s is needed to freeze action which is more useful being able to get that shutter speed, or IS? I know which I'd prefer

[rbarry]

Sorry ap4a, I should have written "infer" rather than state.

I find there are more occasions when the 3 to 4 F stop advantage that IS gives me at the lower light levels you describe, outweigh the advantage of 1 F stop the F4.0 gives away to the F2.8 at more ambient light levels. ISO sensitivity has become so much better in the last couple of years on most DSLR bodies; shooting up to ISO 800 has little graining effect, but has many benefits that include increased shutter speeds. There aren't many subjects that need shutter speeds much greater than 1/500sec compared to those that need IS when hand holding at 1/100 or 1/50 sec. Another advantage is almost half the weight of their 2.8 counterparts, which make for steadier hands when hand held after a couple of hours!

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by rbarry

Sorry ap4a, I should have written "infer" rather than state.

I can live with that

I find there are more occasions when the 3 to 4 F stop advantage that IS gives me at the lower light levels you describe, outweigh the advantage of 1 F stop the F4.0 gives away to the F2.8 at more ambient light levels.

Without a doubt there'll be people for whom IS will be more beneficial than a stop of light. If that's you, great.

My point was/is that if you have IS on a slower lens, that IS will help you hand hold the camera and lens for a slower shot, but it won't give you a faster shutter speed.

If the subject is moving and you need to freeze it then a faster lens will help you get that more often. And if you don't have IS you can very often stabilise some other way (good hand-holding technique, tripod, monopod, a fence or wall, lean against something stable, etc).

ISO sensitivity has become so much better in the last couple of years on most DSLR bodies; shooting up to ISO 800 has little graining effect, but has many benefits that include increased shutter speeds.

ISO is the same regardless of the lens. If you max that out and need a stop more shutter speed, what then?

There aren't many subjects that need shutter speeds much greater than 1/500sec compared to those that need IS when hand holding at 1/100 or 1/50 sec.

Sports, wildlife, event photography, many others.

Another advantage is almost half the weight of their 2.8 counterparts, which make for steadier hands when hand held after a couple of hours!

The weight being too much is a personal issue. Some will cope, others won't (and some won't cope with a 70-200 F4 either).

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Always, the beauty of an opinion is everyone can have their own

[rbarry]

So there you have it Markandrew, clear as mud!

In retrospect, ap4a's advice in response to your original post is probably the more relevant to you, if your intentions are to predominately use a tripod/monopod etc.

IS does not increase shutter speed; it compensates for vibration transferred by the user through to the camera. Any movement of the subject matter is immaterial, and cannot be improved through IS.
However, increasing the shutter speed will improve the clarity of a moving subject by taking less time to complete the exposure and "freeze" the moment. A lens that offers a larger aperture setting than another makes this possible. Thus, the f2.8 version will always give a faster shutter speed when wide open than the f4.0 version wide open.

If you are still here after my long winded ramblings, do you have a particular purpose for such a lens ? I would agree that shooting from a tripod or monopod is always the better option, but not always practical in the real world. Depending on the nature of your shoot, there are occasions when using a tripod may well cost you the shot, such as if the subject matter's next move is of an unpredictable nature, or somebody or thing blocks your view! You can't move too fast with a tripod stuck on your camera or adjust back to a horizontal plane that quickly.

Lastly, I would assume you will not be using your lens wide open all the time, so once beyond f4 there is no advantage, and depending on the model you ultimately choose, some would argue that the f4.0 IS version is sharper than the both the earlier f2.8 versions (not the current f2.8 ver 2 though) and the F4 non IS version. In fact the IS F4 version is a different lens entirley from it's non IS sibling, having better glass and a weather proof body. Having said all that, the stable of Canon L series 70-200mm are all very good lenses and the differences are marginal depending on your use.

Let us know your thoughts,

Rick.