IS - not needed in sports, and greatly misunderstood!

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

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'!

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!

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on July 9, 2009 at 11:07am

I would agree. IS is for slower shutter speeds.

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

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 14, 2009 at 11:41pm

Picked up my 70-200 2.8L today.

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.

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.

Permalink Reply by Hubert Guevara on July 16, 2009 at 1:18am

Please share your experience on you 2.8 non-IS.

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.

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on July 16, 2009 at 7:53pm

Thanks, Joe.

Who knows? Sometime in the future I might upgrade, but until then, I'm pretty stoked on the 2.8.