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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 9, 2007, 7:04 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

The guy at the LPS, said that using the IS on the 70-300 would gain almost two full stops?? Maybe there was a salesman's spiff involved here.....

So, the 70-200 Sigma is the best lense for the $$$ for this application?



THANKS!

Ted
thadius65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 7:10 PM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The two stops he was referring to refers to preventing camera shake. So, if you normally needed 1/200 to hand-hold a lens and get a good steady shot, IS allows you to use 1/50 (2 stops) and still get a crisp shot that doesn't have camera shake. The problem is: IS doesn't stop your subjects from moving. To stop your subjects from moving you want 1/400 shutter speeds or better. Which is plenty of shutter speed for hand-holding either of the lenses you're talking about without seeing camera shake. So, the problem for this application is the player would still be a blur because he is moving and the lens doesn't give you a fast enough shutter speed to stop the movement.So, IS is the wrong tool for THIS job. It won't help you a bit because you still need fast shutter speeds to stop your subjects motion.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:46 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

JohnG,

Let me toss this out as a hypothetical. If you were able to obtain the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at or around the same price as the Sigma 2.8 discussed, which would you get?

Thanks,

Ted
thadius65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:59 PM   #24
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

thadius65 wrote:
Quote:
If you were able to obtain the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at or around the same price as the Sigma 2.8 discussed, which would you get?
The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS of course - who wouldn't? :-)

Problem is it's not the same price and IS does not come for free: the same EF 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS version is actually the better lens out of the two EF's!!!
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/...0_28/index.htm
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/...28is/index.htm

It's kind of make sense when you put more corrective elements the sharpness/CA also suffer...
I wished my EF 500 f/4L comes without IS for $$$ less... :idea:
(-> that saving would probably go for another super-telephoto/zoom without IS)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 2:31 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

thadius65 wrote:
Quote:
Let me toss this out as a hypothetical. If you were able to obtain the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at or around the same price as the Sigma 2.8 discussed, which would you get?
I agree with NHL. I would also add this. The 70-200 2.8L IS lens sells for $1600. The Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS sells for $1150. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 sells for $850.

If someone is going to sell you that 70-200 2.8 IS lens for $850 it's broke. There is no way the lens should sell for that amount of money. And, I'll take it the step further - for sports, I don't think IS is worth the extra $500 it costs to go from the CANON non-IS to the CANON WITH IS. That $500 could be better spent in other areas - buying a teleconverter, buying another lens, earning interest in the bank - etc. FOR NON SPORTS USE, the IS can be beneficial but for sporting, it isn't worth the extra money.

Unfortunately there is no realistic comparison where you have two lenses that are EXACTLY THE SAME AND HAVE THE SAME PRICE where one has IS and the other doesn't. The situation doesn't exist. There will be some other difference. Case in point - the 70-200 f4 and 70-300 both sell for around $560. The 70-300 has IS but it isn't f4 and isn't as sharp as the f4 lens and doesn't have the same build quality. But it has longer reach. So, same price but two different lenses.

Or, let me put it to you another way. My lens of choice for field sports? The sigma 120-300 2.8. It doesn't have IS and that doesn't matter a single bit. I put it on a monopod and get better results than any IS lens Canon offers short of it's own 300mm 2.8 L-IS prime lens (which is $4000 and it is fixed focal length).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 3:00 PM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
Or, let me put it to you another way. My lens of choice for field sports? The sigma 120-300 2.8. It doesn't have IS and that doesn't matter a single bit. I put it on a monopod and get better results than any IS lens Canon offers short of it's own 300mm 2.8 L-IS prime lens (which is $4000 and it is fixed focal length).
Let me put it another way - Get the Sigma for now and save up for that 120-300 f/2.8 :-):lol::G
(... which is not that much more than the EF 70-200 2.8L IS)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 3:53 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

love the 120-300..lucky to pick one for less than the 70-200 IS

just joined some gym to improve my wrist power to hold it steady in COLD weather somedays
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 4:53 PM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
just joined some gym to improve my wrist power to hold it steady in COLD weather somedays
This was pointed straight up so your forehead is doing most of the heavy lifting (@ 600mm with a 2x): :-) :-) :-)
-> or need to work on your neck muscle as well...



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 6:00 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

was that manuallly metered???

coz the spot metering sometimes doesnt get the right exposure...but i am talking with respect to a 5D.

Mark II havent got in my hands yet. I will probably getting rid of 5D rfor a Mark II since i am not printing anything bigger than 11*14 or 12*18.


nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 7:32 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

So, here is where the hypothetical may become more than just that....

I do a great deal of non-camera canon business where I work. I am working on an inside Canon connection for a discount or unit at their cost. May or may not pan out, but it may. If it does, I would be faced with the Sigma 2.8 at street and the Canon (either IS or non-IS) at manu cost/discount.

But not counting chickens before they hatch if you will.... There is at least equal chance that it would not occur.

Crossing fingers!
thadius65 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 3:06 PM.