Canon 70-200mm L Lens?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Bryan Baker, May 3, 2004.

  1. Bryan Baker

    Bryan Baker Guest

    I am going to buy a Canon 70-200mm L lens very soon. My dilema is whether
    to go ahead and buy IS version or not. I do mostly landscapes and nature
    photography but now have a beautiful 18 mo old daughter who I find myself
    shooting more and more photo's of. MY question. Is the weight and higher
    price worth the extra sharpness of the IS system? I always use a tripod
    shooting landacapes but hand hold the camera taking pictures of my
    daughter. Any ideas and comments would be appreciated. Thanks.
     
    Bryan Baker, May 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bryan Baker

    Bryan Baker Guest

    Let me clarify "sharpness" I understand I won't gain sharpness, just a f
    stop or two in low light conditions by not letting the subject blurr as
    much.
     
    Bryan Baker, May 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bryan Baker

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Bryan Baker
    I have the older non-IS f/2.8 L and my wife has the lighter 70-200 f/4 L and
    both are excellent. Since you'll be doing a lot of hand holding while shooting
    your daughter I'd advise getting the IS version though. I have this feature on
    a couple of other L lenses and it's a very useful technology.

    If you're not getting the IS version I'd look carefully at the f/4 instead of
    the f/2.8 since it's about half as expensive and half as heavy, but the results
    are excellent. How much is that one f/stop worth to you?

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, May 3, 2004
    #3
  4. http://www.pbase.com/image/28317345

    This image sort of exploded the myth of IS. Taken at 1/15th second and f2.8
    at 200mm.
    I used a 10D Canon, 70~200 f2.8 lens. In practice I've found IS (on an
    earlier lens) to be a waste of time and money. Most sports photographers I
    know with IS lenses switch it off when they work!

    Douglas
    ----------------
     
    Douglas MacDonald, May 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Bryan Baker

    BPR2 Guest

    Get the IS version if you can manage the cost.

    I got the 70 - 200 f2.8L ... without IS ... before I really had any
    experience with IS lenses. I regret it now.

    The f2.8L with a (Canon) 1.4x TC produces marvellous images ... I don't
    notice any of the quality loss that I previously associated with a TC.
     
    BPR2, May 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Bryan Baker

    Nick James Guest


    The exif info for the file says 1/45 sec.
    Even at that speed it shows you must have good handholding technique,
    but I'm not sure I'd say it 'exploded the myth of IS'.

    I only know one guy* that shoots sport professionally and he uses IS.

    Nick

    * so hardly a statisically valid sample :)
     
    Nick James, May 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Bryan Baker

    Mark M Guest

    IS is absolutely worth its weight in gold on this lens...especially if you
    ever end up using it on a DSLR (since the camera-shake factor is
    heightened). It works for still life and panning, and is extremely
    effective.

    If you want to shoot hand-held, you'll be VERY glad you paid the difference
    for the IS.

    Of the 4 IS lenses I own, this one is by far the best.
    (75-300-gave this one to my dad, 28-135, 100-400, 70-200 2.8)
     
    Mark M, May 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Bryan Baker

    Mark M Guest

    This is Canon's SHARPEST tele-zoom by far...even though that wasn't really
    what you meant.
     
    Mark M, May 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Bryan Baker

    Mark M Guest

    Excuse me for pointing out the truth, but you are full of s---, sir.
    To the contrary... Tons of sports photographers flooded the market with
    their used non-IS teles when IS became available.
     
    Mark M, May 4, 2004
    #9
  10. IS is worth the cost, I think. I've got the 100-400, and can hand hold it
    down below 1/100 at full extention. Be aware, however, that IS is not a
    tripod. It'll give you two/three stops, and that's about it.

    You need to know that IS is not instantaneous. It takes about a half second
    for the gyros to get wound up, and then the image floats gently in the
    finder instead of jiggling around. IS is turned on with half press, of
    course, as is AF. I use an Elan7 with the battery holder base, and I
    change batteries on a regular basis (AAs), so I have no worry about running
    out of juice. IS does consume power, and you'll use a lot of it if you're
    following the action getting shots. I don't know what body you're using,
    but battery capacity is a concern if you are doing some serious shooting.

    The gyros will bang about in the lens, but not to worry (I guess...) The
    100-400 has two stages for IS, one of which is for follow focus, which
    turns off the horizontal gyros. Dunno what one does in vertical format,
    though... <grin>

    Good luck!

    Bill Tallman
     
    William D. Tallman, May 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Sorry about the 1/45th Nick... I shot several that day and thought I posted
    the slow one. Oh well high speed photography for me is anything over 1/30th
    of a second anyway.

    5 sports photographers I know - one who's work is regularly in the sports
    pages every Monday, all turn off IS when doing action shots. Something about
    the IS needing time to grip the image and not working reliably at 1/500th
    and above shutter speeds. It's the delay from when you press the button to
    when IS grabs and the shutter fires.

    My handholding technique has been practiced with every cheerleader I come
    across!! Basically it is freedom from caffeine. No cola, no coffee, no tea,
    no smoking so I guess that rules out about 80% of this group's readers. You
    learn to have a steady hand when you have to carry all your gear up mountain
    tracks... The more you can leave behind, the further you can go. My all time
    record for a hand held (rested against a rock actually) shot is 45 seconds
    with a Linhof Technica. I really doubt I've ever used higher than 1/125th
    with that camera and only use a tripod when at sea level.
    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, May 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Professionals have an odd habit of wanting the latest and greatest of
    everything - just to have a hope in hell of getting a better shot than the
    pack. Even if it only happens for a day or two every year. This does not
    mean they need, like or keep using the new gear... They just buy it. Some
    have to sell their old gear before ever they really know if it was better
    than the new stuff. Fact of life sonny... Now go back to learning from your
    magazines.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, May 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Bryan Baker

    Skip M Guest

    That scarcely "explodes" the myth of IS! It just shows that you are really
    good at handholding, something that, when I was in my 20s, I could do, too.
    At that time, I couldn't understand the big deal about tripods, shutter
    speed equals focal length, that sort of thing. Age, and maybe a little fast
    living, have reduced my ability to handhold a lens, at 200mm, I'm maybe good
    for 1/100th sec, or so.
    I know several sports shooters who use their 400mm f2.8 IS lenses with the
    IS on, if you are tracking focus, IS is engaged, too, with the half way down
    shutter button. I've shot unlimited hydroplanes at speed with IS, and not
    had a problem with the IS not "grabbing." A buddy and I were both shooting
    Trans-Am cars last fall with our 100-400 IS lenses, neither of us had a
    problem.
     
    Skip M, May 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Bryan Baker

    Mark M Guest

    Once again you are talking out of your arse.
    Most professionals have much less inclination to those sorts of things than
    the rank amature who wants to **look** like a pro.
    The pro, on the other hand, works with a budget and has to justify purchases
    in terms of the bottom line.
    Who, precisely, is doing this?
    I submit that those who do this as you describe will not be pros for long.
    Now you're not only proving yourself ignorant, but also a complete jerk.
     
    Mark M, May 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Bryan Baker

    Mark M Guest

    You seem to have mistaken "pretty" for "sharp" or blur-free.
     
    Mark M, May 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Bryan Baker

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    No, professionals want to earn money. If that means making
    low-resolution images for magazine printing, almost everything will
    do. The discriminating amateur who is interested in landscapes and
    nature demands far more in terms of optical quality.

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
     
    pioe[rmv], May 4, 2004
    #16
  17. Bryan Baker

    JIM Guest

    Have never missed IS with my 70-200 2.8L. Qualify that further by saying my
    only experience w/IS like stuff is the steady shot in my camcorder. 'Course,
    I rarely am shooting slow film in low light conditions. As noted, IS can/may
    give you 2-3 stops leeway below what you could handhold without it; however,
    if you shoot primarily negatives vice slides, the better films today have
    that much latitude anyway. Also, someone mentioned the "rare" occasions IS
    might be used and my thinking would be if you are reading shutter speeds you
    "normally" would not handhold then running out that tripod or monopod makes
    better sense. Bottom line reads that, like any "gear," IS isn't gunna make
    you a better photog - see if you can tell which pics pub in NG were shot
    w/wo IS.............

    Oh yea, for that 18 mo old, I'd much rather have a camera that was really
    good and fast at servo focusing - one of the reasons I finally went to one
    of these do-it-all-fer-ya electronic wonders; just worn out over the years
    trying to get those guys to run through my trap focused spot;)

    Shoot'em up, sharp, blurred, focused or not, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the
    rest will love you for it!!

    Jim
     
    JIM, May 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Bryan Baker

    Sebastian Po Guest

    And this from a fellow jerk, perhaps?
     
    Sebastian Po, May 4, 2004
    #18
  19. Somehow I get the impression you have a problem with other people having
    some input in a thread, Mark. I guess eventually, when science gets to view
    your remains, the world will discover how important contraception really was
    in the year before your birth. Not from Chernobyl by any chance are you?

    Douglas
    ----------------
     
    Douglas MacDonald, May 4, 2004
    #19
  20. Bryan Baker

    Skip M Guest

    Shot with 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS on Ilford XP-2 at 50mm and f4-1/4 sec. I could
    not have gotten that, handheld, without IS:
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/age.htm
     
    Skip M, May 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.