IS or none IS canon 70-200mm

[khatri79]

I have recently purchased EF 70-200mm f4/L USM (Non-IS). Absence of IS really doesn't bother me at all though its true that IS matters when shooting moving subjects. However if you shoot moving subjects at shutter speeds over 1/250 sec, which is mostly the case in daylight, having IS is not worth it. f4 produces great bokeh as well. Above all steadiness of photographers hands during hand held photography is capability of the individual that can significantly reduce camera shake to get crisp results.

Apart from all that though 70-200 f4 is the lightest lens in its tier, it will weigh around 1.5 kg with crop body camera. Therefore it is not practical to shoot many shots hand held. You will be using tripod most of the time.

Overall this lens will give you best value for money.

Khatri

[Markandrew]

Many thanks to all of you for youre imput.
You have me in a bit of a spin.
But i will probably opt for non IS as iam a bige into tripod.
Will it be a 2.8 or F4 not sure yet.
Many thanks
Mark

[rbarry]

Mark,
Which ever version you ultimately choose, it will reward you with some great results.

Khatri79, glad you are enjoying your new lens, it will give you great results and the ability to capture quality images probably not possible before.

But just to let you know, IS will not improve the capture of a moving object unless you are referring to a panned subject when the secondary form of IS engaged. IS will only compensate for camera shake generated from an individual holding the camera, it can not increase shutter speed. This becomes more exaggerated at longer focal lengths and helps in poor light conditions at slower shutter speeds. The amount it helps will always be the same for any one individual; you may be able to hand hold better than I can, but I will still get the same amount of potential benefit from a lens with IS compared to one without. You will get greater benefit from both lenses because you can hold both lenses better than I can. (but not at the same time!)

[Markulous]

We tried (rented from Lenses For Hire) the f/4 IS and then the f/2.8 non-IS for a couple of events. Loved the IS but loved the extra aperture stop (shallow DOF is a strong favourite for me!) - from the many comments and even more images, I decided that the f/2.8 (first stage - decision on f/2.8!) non-IS was slightly sharper than the IS. OH preferred the IS

With animals (pets and wildlife) being major subjects and the fact that, despite loving to show motion (but in the right places!), high(ish) shutters would probably be used

So I got the f/2.8 non-IS

OH got the f/2.8 IS

And do you know I never borrow the IS version as I find I can get everything I want without IS (but I still love my 15-85 IS and 150-500 OS!)

Here's one of the first shots I took with it - Bolton Abbey behind

[cosmicma]

another thought on this...

IS is all well n good and gives you the equivalent of a couple of stops or so but for me it's at the wrong end of the camera there are many ways of steadying a camera for the shot ( bean bags , tripods , mono pods etc.. ) but the only real way of getting those extra stops is with faster glass

you never told us what your final choice was

[Markandrew]

Its the 70-200 non IS i do like my tripod, and i have to look after my bank balance as a 5 d is in the pipe line.
I took my first shots many moons ago with a Pentax ME supper and Tamron 70-210.
No tripod and what was IS then. So whats it now.
Get the shot right first time and ban photo shop dont cheat youre self.
Mark

[cosmicma]

70 - 200 f2.8 or f4 non IS ?? just curious

i had a pentax me super in the 80's it was a great little camera i was quite fond of it

EDIT...

doesn't matter i noticed in another thread you got the 2.8
good choice