IS - not needed in sports, and greatly misunderstood!

I've mulled over the decision between the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS and non-IS forever, not knowing if the IS was really going to help me out for my college sports photographer position I have next year.

No. It's not. Just to make something very clear: IS only prevents camera SHAKE, which would be factored out at shutter speeds fast enough to catch action in sports to begin with. In fact, IS is mainly useless for shutter speeds under 1/125th maximum. I'm not going to be shooting any sports at 1/60th. No sir!

... and that's why I'm going for the 2.8L non-IS. Any thoughts? Anyone in the same position?

Tags: 2.8, 70-200, aperture, canon, is, jordanbstead, l, light, non-is, shooting

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gopal Venkat on July 9, 2009 at 1:11am: Jordan,

You are correct. IS helps prevent Camera Shake and is useful in low light situations.

One of the yardsticks of setting shutter speed is to ensure that it is not less than 1/focal length of the lens.
[in the case of a 200mm lens, the shutter should be 1/200, for a 300mm lens the shutter speed should be 1/300 and so on]

Considering the weight of the CANON 70-200 lenses, the above yardstick is not a bad recommendation to prevent blurred images.That is where the IS could help (when you shoot a picture at 1/125 with the focal length set to 200mm)

The extra $450 is not a bad idea when you consider that you get to use the IS lens in low light situations as well.

I have used the IS lens and quite impressed with it. (I have not used the non-IS lens)

I look forward to reading other opinions as well.

Gopal; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 9, 2009 at 1:22pm: Also true! yet the overlooked fact is that you wouldn't be shooting sports at anything less than 1/250th anyways, even in low light. For that sort of thing you'd have to throw on the 50mm or something prime, like a 1.4, or 1.8 and start foot zoomin'!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Frenzyyyy on July 9, 2009 at 2:07am: well i prefer the 200L f2.8, less weight extreme sharp fast focusing just spend some time to learn were to be in the field,

but in the 70-200 extra weight will spend 90% of the power of the IS ;0P
and less fun.. because it's extra luxury just sit and but feet on another play with zoom (which is anyone can do that ) ;0))
... just move and get a better shoots than the 70-200 owners by your skills take it as a fun challenge ;0)

by ferrari it's easy to beat golf on straight highway, but in down town it depend on the DRIVER ;0))))

amateur trying to help
me ;0); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 9, 2009 at 1:21pm: true. yet the 70-200 is far more versatile for the sports i'll be shooting - all sports, in fact!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on July 9, 2009 at 11:07am: I would agree. IS is for slower shutter speeds.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mika Karhulahti on July 9, 2009 at 3:47pm: IS does, however, help you panning. And thats where you might want to shoot sports under 1/125th sec.
Of course, should you not want to use panning as a creative method, then you are right. And also, if your hands are steady enough..

Personally, I sold my f2.8 (non-is) Sigma 70-200 zoom to get Canon f2.8 IS L 70-200 zoom. Even though my Sigma was a good copy of that lens, I couldn´t be happier with my choice. Let it also be stated, that I don´t shoot sports that much, but rather performances on various lighting conditions..

rgds,
Mika; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 14, 2009 at 11:41pm: Picked up my 70-200 2.8L today.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hubert Guevara on July 15, 2009 at 12:49am: Hi Jordan, you may want to consider EF 70-200L f/4 IS especially if you will be shooting outdoor sports. Good quality shots for a lesser amount. I would prefer this to a EF 70-200L f/2.8 non-IS.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 15, 2009 at 8:55am: I already owned the f/4, and just got the 2.8 non IS. this is because I'll mainly be shooting indoor sports.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hubert Guevara on July 16, 2009 at 1:18am: Please share your experience on you 2.8 non-IS.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 16, 2009 at 9:17am: 1. Not as heavy as people whine it is, but yes, it is "heavy."
2. Gigantic glass.
3. Insane AF speed.
4. Built like an M1 Abrams tank.
5. Comes in a velvet lined black tube.
6. Got mine used with all the stuff including a tripod ring for $850 USD.
7. Can't wait to shoot sports with it.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joseph Hand on July 16, 2009 at 7:13pm: I too shoot school age sports. I have the 2.8L IS 70-200MM and wrestled with the same decision 2 years ago. I ended up with the IS and love my lens. Here is the deciding factor. Even though I shoot a lot of sports outdoors and have the freedom to use the lens with IS turned of and have enough light to give me the headroom, there are still a fair amount of gigs that are either shot in the rain, dusk, indoors, etc... to warrent the IS. Likely half of what I do with school benefits from IS. Now, when I get tapped by the Drama teacher to come and photograph the school play or many other posible scenarios, I am ready.

I know you bought the lens already... just thought i'd put in my 2.4 cents.

Happy Shooting!
joe; ▶ Reply to This