1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

IS vs Non IS

Discussion in 'Introductions...' started by AdamStockbridge, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. Hi, im looking at buying the canon 70-200m f/4 L USM, only to realise that it wont come with IS. After looking up some reviews, alot of people are saying that for what i'll be using it for (sports photography) is that it wont be necessary. Im an amateur photographer, hence why im not buying a £2k+ lens. Im using a Canon 600D, so any help would be grateful, as would any recommendations for alternative lenses.
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Get the IS version of the F4 it is very good. Also, for sport, although a lot heavier the F2.8 will focus a lot faster and costs less than £2k I believe. Supported on a monopod the weight is neither here nor there. Both will take a x1.4 converter.
     
  3. I'd love a F2.8, but slightly out of budget. With the converter, will i have to have that to mount the lens on, or is it just a nice addition to have?
     
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It is just an option. Depends on your sport as to whether 70-200 is enough focal length.

    Not sure what you mean by mount. The converter goes between the lens and the camera, it doesn't have a tripod mount. The F4 itself doesn't come with a tripod mount but will take one - I swap the one from my 400 F5.6. A lens mount, which lets you have the camera/lens balanced at the centre of gravity on a monopod or tripod, is useful if you have to hold the camera "ready" for long periods.
     
  5. Ohh, i see. Thanks for this, cleared up a few things for me. Is there any websites you'd recommend for getting these? or is it best just to have a browse online?
     
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Try the main AP advertisers, Park, Wex, LCE, Mifsuds, etc. They all have new and used and list stock online.
     
  7. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Don't dismiss the non-IS lens. It is a fine lens and I find I can cope without IS.
     
  8. Do you think the non IS with the extender would be suitable for sports photography?
     
  9. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    As it was put, one can cope with non-IS lenses. In film days we never had IS. I use a non-IS 400mm F5.6 on a x1.3 crop sensor for bird photography. On a monopod and on a good day I can get away with 1/250 s maximum exposure time. Some sports you need short exposure times, which will be the origin of your original advice, but if you have the choice of IS I would take it rather than cope without. What sport is it you are interested in ?
     

  10. I will mainly be focusing on football and motocross. A monopod will definitely be purchased, due to the overall weight, and of the points you have pointed out. Also an extender like you previously mentioned will help things out?
     
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I have not tried to take photographs of either. Maybe someone else will contribute advice.

    For football I suspect the combination is OK for touchline action near you but action the far side of the pitch will be too far away. For motocross I have not got a clue. i have used a 70-200 F4 by itself for cyclocross (once, there is an album on my Flickr) but the spectators were able to be very close.

    I would expect a x1.4 on a 70-200 F4 L (makes it a 100-280 F5.6) to be the equal or better than a non-L 70-300 which will also be F5.6 at the long end. A x2 converter is generally a no-no unless paired with a super-tele because there is a loss in quality and auto-focus goes up the spout. I am not completely sure but I think the main difference between the mkii and mkiii canon converters is in the electronic information they pass (the new superteles have some fancy electronics) rather than optics. A used mkii x1.4 is a lot cheaper than a mkiii.
     
  12. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Some photography sites suggest that IS is not necessary for some sports given the high shutter speeds required, however if funds allow, then an IS lens will always provide more flexibility. If you think you will need more than 200mm for most of your shots then I would recommend getting a longer lens eg. 100-400mm L rather than using extenders for the reasons already stated. Loss of autofocus can be a big issue. I don't shoot football or motocross but I expect a 200mm lens is too short. There was a recent thread discussing the 100-400L IS, 300L IS, 400L and a few others.
     
  13. Thanks for all the advise guys. Ive taken it all on board. Im now in a dilemma. I have chosen the lens and budget range, but do i go for the Canon EF 70-200mm L F4 with IS, or go for the Canon EF 70-200mm L F2.8 BUT without IS?
     
  14. Shmifyy

    Shmifyy Member

    I've just bought the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 with IS. After a lot of deliberation, and many many days of research, I couldn't find a single review that suggested it was significantly worse than the Canon version, beyond it's own little quirks, and given the price difference, decided I would rather go with the full spec Sigma, than settle for a lower spec Canon.

    Just thought I'd offer you an alternative.

    Worth noting that whilst i've owned the Sigma since the end of December, I've not actually used it yet owing to the fact that at the beginning of Dec I headed to my overseas home, and haven't yet made it back to the UK. The 6000 mile gap between my camera and the lens does prove difficult for getting a decent shot.

    Cheers

    Smiffy

    Thought I'd offer you a link to a bit of a mixed review however.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx
     
  15. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    If you really do only use your 70-200 for fast action sports then the lack of IS,OS,VR or whatever the manufacturer calls it may not matter because you will be using considered shutter speeds to show the action of the sport. Your own contribution to motion blur might normally be negligible. However the moment you use your lens in less than perfect light for a fairly static subject you want IS. Since stabilisation has become available I have always bought the option to use as appropriate. I have never regretted that extra cost..
     
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The f4 L IS is lighter, faster focusing and sharper than the old f2.8 non-IS, so unless you really, really need f2.8, it's the one to go for.
    I own an earlier version of the Sigma, and it's pretty decent, but it's a bit of a lump to carry about - as above.
    HOWEVER, the 100-400 is probably much more useful to you.
     
  17. Cheers guys. I ended up going for the 70-200 F4 L IS. And upgraded my body to a Canon 7D mk1. I haven't managed any sports photography since having it, due to work and not having the time, but i have had the chance to get some general photos, which im more than happy with. In time, i may look to p/x it and go for a 100-400 lens, but for the time being, this is ideal. Also, what are your opinions on tele-converters? I've heard alot of mixed reviews on them, but not sure if they're worth it in the long run?
     
  18. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I found these two videos instructive.





    The second is specifically about the Canon 100-400 vs the 70-200 (f/2.8 though).
     

Share This Page