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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 25, 2004, 6:41 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

I bought the 70-200 IS, then chickened out after reading NHL's response and cancelled the order. I don't think I'll ever purchase IS now until I can play with both IS and NON IS at exactly the same time and in exactly the same environment. Because "that" alone will demonstrate to me the difference.

If IS is as wonderful as everyone claims then why are some of you guys not posting examples and tests that can be looked at and analysed. If I absolutely "knew" that IS was the cat's meow, then I know that I'd be posting some evidence and example. It would be as simple as shooting something with IS on, then shooting with IS off, then posting the result. That way some of us here who don't have that option would have something further to work with.

In otherwords, it would be nice if one of you guyz would consider doing just that.

I have image stabalization on my FZ10 and I know that it doesn't help much, at all actually, with sports shooting. So I wonder if that is the same experience I would gain from spending a few thousand dollars for the 70-200. If so, that would make me a very unhappy camper, so I need to have more bacon to fry before making an ultimate decision...thankfully NHL brought me to my senses.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 8:35 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Sorry Norm...I don't do lens testing but I can send you here to read where someone did such tests:

http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 8:56 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 386
Default

IS is indeed a marvel, but there are some weird limitations. When used on a tripod (or whatever sturdy undergroudn) it causes the adversed affect. Took me some while to remember that IS should be switched off when taking a photo's using a bench or whatever, then I recalled that small line in the manual; Switch IS off when using a tripod...On the other side a hand held photo at 1/20s can turn out crisp clear.
If camera is moved too much during exposure with IS, it results in ghosting instead of the regular fuzzy fluf.
Mathilde uP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 9:39 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Henry, that string is my entire point.

First of all Mr. Greenspun uses stationary buildings and flowers to prove the IS point. That isn't where I'd be using it, not even close. If I were to plan to shoot stationary buildings from a distance the first lens I'd grab is the 50-500, beyond a doubt.

Then, in that same string I read from Magnus Aldemark: First of all, I love this lens! But... When shooting (hand held) in dim light, the weight becomes pretty disturbing. I think it's much easier to get a sharp image using a 85, 135 or 200 at f/2.8 than it is with the 70-200. Sure, it may seem obvious, but I really didn't think of it when I bought mine.

My question is "why can Magnus not get a sharp image with this lens in this situation?

Stephen says: "Took some more the next day at my youngest daughters dance recital in another auditorium, no flash allowed. I braced myself on the rail, spot metered, and the results were also good, though the dancers blurred in some shots."

Why couldn't Stephen get clean shots with the IS?

Bill says: "At first, I was very pleased with the images, as they were definitely a step up from the consumer type zooms I used previously. As time went on however, I found that I was much happier with prime lenses like the 50/1.4, the 85/1.8, and the 100/2.0. They focused better in poor light, adding filters wasless costly in terms of money and light loss, and the lightness made photography much more spontaneous and fun."

Yikes, I "have" the 100/2.0 and this guy is saying that he's happier with it than the 70-200 IS?

Patrick Wong said: "I have the Sigma 70 to 200 F2.8 HSM. It is correct for the UK magazine Pratical Photography to rate the lens higher then the Canon. It is razor sharp, it is the one lens I use full time on my EOS 3 and have many rolls of film to prove. It HSM (similar to Canon USM) is quiet, fast, and deadly accurate plus you focus maunally without pushing a switch. This is one the few lens that really give Canon or Nikon a run for there money, I save about $1000 CDN price different."

And so on, so this is exactly why I would need to have that lens in my grasp, testing it alongside a few other lenses before actually making a decision to purchase it.


This string that you offer is exactly my point with this lens. Thanks Henry.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2004, 11:05 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

What you need is a 300mm f/1.0 lens (kidding of course...that beast would weigh about 50 pounds! LOL)
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 5:06 AM   #36
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Normcar

You clearly understand the issue... What are you looking for? A reason to justify the purchase... may be?

IS does work and it only solves one and one problem only: the handshaking problem at slower shutter speed. In many cases this is all you need since even though the IS lens might weight more, a tripod is heavier and a monopod is just another item you have to carry around. Sometime you're caught off guard with neither and this is when you have to brace yourself against a location which might not be at an optimum angle of view: IS give you this freedom and spontaneity to capture your shot...

IS can not cure action shots in low-light which is what you're looking for (and you have the right lenses for it already). IS is a nice feature to have, but also remember all theses whirring noises and "klonk" doesn't come for free since it also penalizes the battery (which the camera doesn't have to provide for when the lens is non IS). I often heard the D100 has longer battery life... now you know why (Nikon knew it already).
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 8:48 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I have to say that NHL is exactly right.

Normcar, you are asking IS to do something that it can't do, and wasn't intended to do. IS does not stop movement of the subject, how could it? If you need a lens that will stop motion in low light then you need a high shutter speed, and only the largest aperture (or a great flash setup) will do it. Nothing else will help.

There is another thing that IS does that people haven't said. It also helps with mirror slap and wind-induced movement. I use IS on a tripod outdoors all the time with my 100-400L because there is still some movement when I'm shooting outdoors. Not all IS is sensitive enough to work with the slight movement that these two things create... not all IS is created equal. But most of the higher end lenses have an IS which can be used on a tripod (I though the 70-200 was in that group, maybe I'm wrong?) I know that Chuck Westfall posted a list of lenses that have IS that works on a tripod on rob galbraith's forum (I can't find that link.) He found that the manual was wrong some times. (For those that don't know Chuck Westfall works for Canon with the title "Director/Technical Information".) He found it by testing, not by trusting the manual.

Another thing from your list of quotes. A well made prime lens should be sharper than a zoom. Zoom's have improved in quality over the last 5-10 years. Some, the really best ones, have gotten close to the optical quality of prime lenses at certain focal lengths. So the statment from "Magnus Aldemark" is true... of course it is. If your desire is for the sharpest lens possible (not picture, lens), then don't get a zoom. Who cares about IS, IS is a secondary consideration. But there is a reaon why Canon puts IS on their longer focal length prime lenses as well... because it helps.

As for the comment about a prime lens focusing faster than a zoom. I don't know if that makes sense or not. Certainly a lens with a larger aperture should focus faster in lower light, it doesn't matter if its a prime or a zoom.

Maybe I just stepped into this discussion late or something. So maybe I missed what Normcar is trying to do. If it's action shots in low light, IS certainly won't hurt, but the largest aperture he can get is the answer (i.e. the way to shop for a lens is by aperture and appropriate focual length, not if it has IS.) IS would just be icing on the cake.

Or, of course, using a flash (or many) but is many situations that isn't possible.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 1:15 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
IS does work and it only solves one and one problem only: the handshaking problem at slower shutter speed.
Yes, that's what's finally sinking in and thankfully you clued me in, NHL, just in the nick of time. I'm sure the IS if fabulous for anything relatively stationary or something that's moving in one constant direction (e.g. panning a motor car). I was mistakenly thinking that it was going to help with shooting the stuff I usually shoot but now I think I have a better perspective.

In any event, I may be able to get my hands on one this weekend to try for a bit and that will be both educational and fun.

Eric, the problem with "open aperture" in my area of interest is that some lenses just soften up wide open and the DOF is too tiny for good overall shots of action. I find myself stopping down to 5.6 or more no matter "what" lens I have.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 5:34 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Normcar

I can fully appreciate your problem. I didn't say I liked the solution (or that it would produce acceptable pictures) just that it would solve that specific problem (shutter speed.)

Part of the reason I buy the really expensive lenses is that they perform better wide open or one stop down than cheaper ones. I need as high a shutter speed as I can to stop the animals, and at the same time IS to help with my hand motion. IS is almost never bad (I've had it mess up on a tripod once, but that was indoors during a lens test, not "in the real world", when there really was no shake for it to correct.)

There are shots that I would never have gotten without IS.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 6:41 PM   #40
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 46
Default

Gentelman,

I've been following this thread for a while, and though I'm a newbie here maybe I can prove the value of the "IS" feature by showing a "shoot" that would have been Impossible without IS!!

I found myself at work Offshore in the Gulf of Mexico on the night of 11-8-03, a Lunar Eclipse at my finger tips, but had fogot my tripod at home (bummer)! My only chance of capturing some of the event was to "jam" the camera on a towel resting on the steel deck of the Heliport at a point near the exit\entrance stairwell! The winds were blowing at 20 to 25mph, the facility shaking in the 10 ft. seas and the task of focusing and holding the unit steady was arduous to say the least! On top all that I used the 380mm max Optical in combo with the 4X Digital Focal Stretch (total 1520mm equivalent) to achieve my desired framre filling captures. Lost much resolution but overall captured the event intacted! Only able to salvage 25% of the shots as Severe Camera Motion and Poor Focus destroyed the other 75%!!

No real Artistic Quality here, just used what I had for the moment. You be the judge whether Any success was possible Without "IS"!

http://community.webshots.com/album/98933758XJROAt

My humble 2 cents!

Ted
theophile is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 6:36 PM.