Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS or no?

  • 06-03-2010 1:28am
    #1
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭


    Hi,
    I have a canon 70-300mm f/5.6 IS that I use primarily for shooting soccer with my 40D. It is a great general purpose telephoto, and the IS is handy occasionally but I could live happily without it.

    The aperture is killing me though - shooting soccer on a cloudy day has me up to ISO 1600 & often barely making a shutter speed of 1/500. So, I want a 70-200 f/2.8.

    I plan to buy a used one soon. I have ruled out the recently announced MkII version due to its cost.
    Can anybody advise me on the IS vs non-IS version? Some reviews state the IS version is sharper, others recommend the non-IS...I have never used either - so advice would be v.welcome.

    Thanks,
    FoxT


Comments

  • #2
    Covey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    Have used both, not sharper per se, but easier to maintain sharpness in low light, at the cost of weight of course.

    Some maintain the f4 is sharper, which I also had. I didn't find that I have to say!


  • #3
    oshead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭oshead


    You have to wonder why you'd need IS at 1/500 of a sec. If you are trying to stop high speed action with fast shutter speeds then IS wont do that. But I'm only stating the obvious, No? If you can afford €500 extra for IS then go for it. You'll probably be glad you did at some stage. I've tried both the f2.8 IS and f4 IS version. I wouldn't say one is sharper than the other.

    My simple suggestion to you is to get the fastest glass you can afford and if you drop the IS option, spend the spare cash on an EF 1.4x extender.


  • #4
    hcnyla
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 100 ✭✭hcnyla


    If you are primarily going to be using it for shooting soccer then you don't need the IS.

    I have the non-IS version and it's so sharp you could nearly cut yourself with it :) I wouldn't imagine there is much of a difference in sharpness either between the IS and non. The canon L lenses are very sharp, as you would expect for the price of the stuff.

    I use it for sport, weddings, portraits etc. Sometimes, especially in a church at a wedding, I would love to have the IS version due to low light so I will probably upgrade sometime but currently it suits my needs and would more than likely suit yours too.

    You should be able to pick up a second hand model for €7-800 if you look around.


  • #5
    swingking
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,258 ✭✭✭swingking


    I borrowed Coveys for a shoot there yesterday and it's an amazing lens. Thanks Covey :)

    the IS means you can get sharpness at 1/20 of a second in low light. Only disadvantage is it eats batteries like no tomorrow. ;)


  • #6
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    my two cents, the IS version regarding sports brings nothing to the table other than weather sealing but for that you also need a 1d body to complete it. IS is only used to stop camera shake it wont do anything to freeze action. Most tests conclude that the non IS models are sharper than the IS version.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    Thanks for the advice, everybody. I understand the limitations of IS ( I never use it for soccer...maybe I didn't make that clear) What I was trying to say was

    - the 70-300 f/5.6 does great for general walk aroundy stuff but not for soccer as the hole in the middle is too small...
    - I would pay 500 extra for IS on the 70-200 IS, provided always that it is as sharp as the non-IS version.
    -if the IS unit is less sharp then I'll go for the non-IS unit & keep the 70-300IS that I have for the other, non-soccery stuff
    - but if the IS unit is as sharp as the non-IS , then I'll go for the IS unit & sell the 70-300, so one less lens in the bag...

    Anyhow what I think I am hearing is that the IS unit is as good as the non-IS, but the IS is heavier & eats batteries. I can live with that...

    Thanks again,
    -FoxT


Advertisement