• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

is or no is (1 Viewer)

greg mit

Well-known member
Hi all, I am about to get a new lens, 70-200L F2.8, it will be used on a Canon 50D and will be used for most types of photography. Sons sport, general and wildlife with and without a Canon 1.4 converter on. Do you think it is worth paying the xtra for (is) or is this lens quite useable without it. For wildelife with and without the converter I will use a mono or tripod, but just unsure if I will be able to hand hold 200mmm for the other things without (is). Any thoughts.
 
Last edited:
If you are using it handheld, IS will give some advantage. How much depends on the amount of light you have, the type of subject, and how good you are at handholding.

Freezing moving subjects generally means less benefit form IS - you need a high enough shutter speed to freeze the subject anyway. However, if you are panning a moving subject, you might see more benefit.

If you are shooting still subjects in poorer light, IS can be a real boon.

If you cannot achieve a really steady platform, IS can be a real boon.

So - depends on the situation. It might be better to spend the money on a fast (f1.8/2) prime for some of your uses, buy the cheaper zoom ?

Note I have a 70-200 2.8 IS. The chief reason it doesn't get used more is weight.

Mike.
 
Last edited:
As someone with chronic arthritis of the spine,IS has been a real boon for me as I don`t have to lug a heavy tripod around with me.Even if your fit enough without the extra weight of tripod on a long walk has its benefits.

Steve.
 
I had IS on the first lens I bought canon 70-300mm, but now I don't own a IS lens and I dont miss it, will I buy another IS dont think so, horses for courses.....I dont go out in low light.
 
apart from this one that you are planning to buy ;) http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=150903

The trouble with me is I keep changing my mind, I agree I said that I could buy this new lens 18-135mm as it fits in the gap, but do I really need it NO, Do I need to go to Spain on a bird trip NO, do I need a new 7d NO, do I need a new 60d NO, My problem is I cant make my mind up, and anyway I have plenty of time for that, which one wins, we will see. But if it had NO IS it would not worry me. :-O
 
If you have the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM its tripod sensing, does that mean it switches off the IS or only one plane ?
 
Take a look at the reviews for all four of Canon's 70-200mm's here www.photozone.de
According to the reviewer who is well respected on this forum the 70-200mm f4 IS is nearly flawless and the top of the range model, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, performed rather dissapointing for a lense with that price tag and more than one copy was tested!

Now make of it what you will but I know that if I had to choose one (even if price wasn't an issue) it would be the f4 IS version and not just because of those reviews. Size wise it is smaller, lighter and much more portable and it has a 4-stop IS system I believe. Which means all in all it's a superb hand-held lens and I have actually had the pleasure of using one too.
 
I compared my 100-400 IS to a pro friend's 70-200 f/2.8 without IS, and I'm soooo glad I got the IS. In an evening of low-light handheld and tripod shooting I did not get a single usable handheld shot from the 70-200 at f/2.8, but I got plenty of decent shots at 400 at f/5.6 with IS on. If I can hand hold a 400mm lens in low light and shoot at 1/100 sec or under, I'm impressed -- and I was. A 200 at f/2.8 is only going to be that. If you cannot achieve an honest 1/250 there's no way you're going to luck into a jitter-free shot. But with IS, you might get the shot, and a whole lot more than that (especially with IS AND f/2.8).

Have you considered the 70-200 f/4 IS to get a significantly lighter (and less costly) lens? Only one-stop of light difference. Anyone want to comment on bokeh differences?
 
From my experiences using both a Nikon 300mm f/4 prime (no image stabilisation) and a 70-300mm image stabilised zoom I would say that if you shoot in bright sunlight there's not much advantage to an IS lens, however as soon as you get into overcast conditions or find yourself under trees or other shade then the IS really makes a huge difference - I often get as good or better results from the zoom compared to the prime when the light gets low.

If the animal is moving fast then a slow shutter speed with IS is going to result in a blurred subject but that could be an arty feature of the photo. ;) I don't find that happens very often but I'd rather have a shot where the subject is a little motion-blurred than just a mess of a photo due to camera movement. It can add sometimes too, like this Avocet with blurred wingtips:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/267705/ppuser/69297
 
Hi all, I am about to get a new lens, 70-200L F2.8, it will be used on a Canon 50D and will be used for most types of photography. Sons sport, general and wildlife with and without a Canon 1.4 converter on. Do you think it is worth paying the xtra for (is) or is this lens quite useable without it. For wildelife with and without the converter I will use a mono or tripod, but just unsure if I will be able to hand hold 200mmm for the other things without (is). Any thoughts.
I have a 70-200/2.8 IS and I find the IS invaluable. I've had to shoot that thing at weddings, at 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO, and without IS (or a tripod, which is not always practical) I might as well have packed up and gone home.

One day I went for a walk in the woods with my girlfriend and her two daughters. I took the 1D3 and 70-200 with me. The light was obviously not stellar (being under tree cover) but I was getting what I hoped would be nice shots. I realised after a few images that everything was coming out like trash and then I spotted that I had been shooting with IS turned off. My previous shooting session was probably AF calibration or something, on a tripod. I turned the IS back on and, Voila!, nice sharp shots once again. The earlier shots were junk and had to be binned.

50D + 200mm lens requires (typically) shutter speeds of 1/320 or faster, for handheld shooting. That assumes "typical" levels of enlargement, say to a maximum of 12x8 print. If you crop in tighter or print/display larger than 12x8 or have unsteady hands then you will (probably) need an even faster shutter speed; maybe 1/500, maybe more. IS helps. Period.

Of course, if you only shoot sports and fast action then you will want the shutter speed high in any case, so you may not need IS, but for all round general purpose shooting, IS is a blessing.
 
Strangely enough I have just sold my Canon 300mm f4 IS as I could not get on with it. If I needed to take a quick shot then the IS would take an eternity to wind itself up but this may have been a fault with the lens ? I put the lens up for sale on POTN and within minutes it had gone !
I have spoken to RoyC and he reckons that the IS on his 300mm f2.8 is very quick to engage. Such is life.
 
I compared my 100-400 IS to a pro friend's 70-200 f/2.8 without IS, and I'm soooo glad I got the IS. In an evening of low-light handheld and tripod shooting I did not get a single usable handheld shot from the 70-200 at f/2.8, but I got plenty of decent shots at 400 at f/5.6 with IS on. If I can hand hold a 400mm lens in low light and shoot at 1/100 sec or under, I'm impressed -- and I was. A 200 at f/2.8 is only going to be that. If you cannot achieve an honest 1/250 there's no way you're going to luck into a jitter-free shot.

Er, if the light was sufficient to give you 1/100s at f/5.6 then you should have been able to shoot at 1/400s at f/2.8. In addition , with a lot of cameras the AF will be a lot better using the faster lens.
 
a point often missed is that some cameras give hi performace AF with a f2.8 and larger apeture .
I like IS myself too.
Rob.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top