Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2007, 11:20 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172

Certainly not in the market, just learning much as links point to links, point to links and I read reviews on some of these beloved tools.

Would someone touch on IS as it applies to a lens such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8? Noticed a lens like this comes with or without IS. As I have learned from many of these posts, correct me if I'm wrong, IS doesn't really come into play for freezing action. Might simply allow for more stops in the same lighting environment, etc. Perhaps a little more success when the slightest shake may occur.

Panning such as the airplane shots I've seen?

Keep ISO/noise down low light, indoor settings (weddings)?

What are the other situations where IS would be a MUST HAVE?

Saw some claim they thought ABSENCE of IS may offer sharper images? True? Why?

Is that feature worth the extra money to most? Specific shooter and situations certainly apply. Just general thoughts?


leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2007, 1:05 PM   #2
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529


Basically on this lens, IS will be beneficial when you are shooting at slow shutter speeds (below 1/320 say - 1/320 isn't exact for some people it might be 1/400 others 1/125 - depends on how steady you hold your gear). In a nutshell that's it.

As you correctly pointed out - if you want to stop action you're generally shooting at shutter speeds over 1/320 so IS has very little if any benefit - by the time you hit 1/500 I would say there is no noticable benefit on this length/weight of lens.

So, what are some of the situations where you would be using a 70-200 and shutter speeds lower than 1/320? Anything inside a church (wedding, first communion, baptism etc) - anything indoors with available light where this focal length is appropriate - which means big rooms/halls. Not usually a house. Some wildlife shooting (something in the trees wherethere's less light- although with only 200mm the subject better be close - so I would argue the 70-200 2.8 IS is a poor wildlife lens. For less money you could have the 100-400L which is a much better wildlife lens.

And of course in all these instances your subject better be stationary. Otherwise a prime lens, higher ISOor flash is of greater benefit.

There are people that swear you must get the IS version - it's so much better. But I've gotta say, from my experience IS is a very over-rated feature. I've seen WAY, WAY too many poor shots from people who tried to use IS and the shot is still soft. I think if Canon ever does go to IS in the body (something I doubt very highly in the next few years) that would be great. But to me, IS isn't worth $400-500. As mentioned before, fast prime lenses, flash or monopod or tripod are less expensive options and produce much better results in worse conditions.

Don't misunderstand though - I don't want to dismiss other shooters experiences. Others find it incredibly useful and that's fine. But my experience is different (and yes I own two lenses with IS - the 28-135 and the 100-400 so I'm aware of it's capabilities). IMO, if it were $100 extra it would be worth it - but $400-500, no - sorry. not for me at least. but that's just my opinion. Others will no doubt differ.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2007, 12:35 AM   #3
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

Like John I have three lenses with IS, including the not so big 500 f/4 IS, but I don't recall when was the last time I really 'need' this feature - Most of my shots are birds in flight so I always set my shutter speeed high enough to achieve my desired effects and can't rely on IS.
As to shooting still nature under the cover of trees - Well guess what? you usually point your camera up against a brighter sky or sun shining through the leafy background -> So you'll have to counter this with flash anyway, and with flash IS is also no longer required at lower shutter speed
-> and with this comes better contrast/saturation than shooting with IS alone in lower light

There's a mode 2 for panning (where the IS is actually turned off in the horizontal axis to prevent the IS from fighting the natural lateral movement) and everyone automatically assumed IS is an absolute must for panning - Guest what? This el cheapo lens has no IS yet here's a panning shot: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...755138#p755138
I can find many other posts of non-IS lens perfectly fine for panning too
-> In fact panning has been performed way before IS was invented!!!

Saw some claim they thought ABSENCE of IS may offer sharper images? True? Why?
This is not a claim - It's a fact:

Actually if you can afford a 70-200 f/2.8 IS I highly recommend to spend a little more and spring for the 120-300 f/2.8 instead - Much more flexible IMO :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:33 PM.