IS vs. Non-IS

(clb) · (clb) **Join Date: Dec 2007** 10-07-2009, 8:44 PM

Looking to pick up the Canon 70-200/2.8 lens. Debating between the IS and Non-IS versions. I realize that for wakeboarding pics on a typical sunny day it may not make any difference at a fast shutter speed. But my son also plays hockey and football so I have those 2 sports to worry about. Could I substitute a monopod in place of the IS? Down to what speeds does the IS kick in and make a difference?

Is the Canon lens the top of the line lens? Any experiences with the Sigma lens? Trying to get the most bang for my buck.

Thanks,
Cooper

(clb) · (clb) **Join Date: Dec 2007** 10-07-2009, 9:21 PM

I have heard very good things about the 70-200 F/4 lens too, but I think I need the 2.8 for the nighttime football games and the crappy arse lighting at the hockey games. Thoughts?

murrayair 10-08-2009, 12:13 AM

Here's the link to a site I really like for lens reviews. The guy is very thorough:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(scott_a) · (scott_a) **Join Date: Dec 2002** 10-08-2009, 8:28 PM

Well I'll add that I LOVE my 70-200 f2.8L IS. It's an absolute beast of a lens, and I KNOW that I'm not alone in that assessment.

Yes, it is a top of the line lens and nearly all pro Canon shooters have one in their bag.

I have no idea how it compares to the Sigma lens.

I have no idea when the IS kicks or any of the other techy stuff like that. I was actually waiting for someone else to post that because I know several others here have used some of the other versions of the 70-200mm lens. Perhaps they could help out with how much the IS affects low light shooting.

As far as the monopod vs IS argument, I would personally get the IS just because you'll always have that stabilization with you. It's also one less thing to pack/forget at home. That said, I have no idea how much more the IS version of the lens costs, and I have no idea if you already have a monopod or how much you're looking to spend on one.

Hope this helps...

(wakedad33) · (wakedad33) **Join Date: Oct 2005** 10-08-2009, 9:33 PM

The link that Sly Park posted (excellent review) claims up to 3 stops of light better with IS hand held, I got the 70-200 F4 IS and love it. I shot with the 2.8 before I bought but weight and cost was a factor in my decision.

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 10-09-2009, 6:57 AM

When I am in the boat shooting at 1/2000th shutter speed does IS matter? I generally have it "off" on the boat and "on" when I am shooting pictures of my kids and such on land. I love my 70-200f2.8L IS. I take 90% of my pictures with my 24-70 or the 70-200! Both are great.

(lgndracer) · (lgndracer) **Join Date: May 2008** 10-10-2009, 2:17 PM

I have the IS version and also mostly do sports (wake, swimming, volleyball, basketball.....) and almost never use the IS for sports. The shutter speed is fast enough where it does not do anything other than drain the batteries.

When shooting hand held landscapes or candids is when I use the IS. Shutter speeds are slower and need to worry about camera shake during longer shutter speeds. When I need it I am glad I have it.

If you are only going to use it for sports, and money is a concern, I would say to save the money and get the non-IS version.