PDA

View Full Version : Speed or IS; which is most important?




harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 11:06 AM
I've got a Canon 7D, and I'm looking to pair it with some nice glass: Telephoto, probably 70-200mm, USM with a nice low f/stop. My problem is that I just can't afford an f/2.8 with IS, but am not too keen on having a much higher aperture.

I'm buying this lens all most entirely to photograph motorsport, so obviously shutter speeds will be above the focal length, which means I won't need IS right? But, I get that horrible feeling I'll regret it once I've bought the lens. So basically, how good and how important is IS too a lens since I have no experience with IS?

Thanks, Harry.



Orlandoech.com
Jun 4, 2011, 11:20 AM
I've got a Canon 7D, and I'm looking to pair it with some nice glass: Telephoto, probably 70-200mm, USM with a nice low f/stop. My problem is that I just can't afford an f/2.8 with IS, but am not too keen on having a much higher aperture.

I'm buying this lens all most entirely to photograph motorsport, so obviously shutter speeds will be above the focal length, which means I won't need IS right? But, I get that horrible feeling I'll regret it once I've bought the lens. So basically, how good and how important is IS too a lens since I have no experience with IS?

Thanks, Harry.

Unless you plan on using a tripod, monopod or have insanely steady hands IS is an important feature to have on a long, heavy lens suchs as a 70-200.

H2Ockey
Jun 4, 2011, 11:21 AM
IS is something that if you've never had it you could go on forever and never miss or need. Once you've shot with a GOOD lens with IS it is a little hard to go back.

One thing is the overall build quality of the lens and sharpness of the lens is generally going to be better with an older pro-level fast telephoto lens than with a newer slower IS lens.

Get a good mono-pod and quality ball head and IS should be a non-factor for the shutter speeds you would most likely be using.

mackmgg
Jun 4, 2011, 11:25 AM
I've got a Canon 7D, and I'm looking to pair it with some nice glass: Telephoto, probably 70-200mm, USM with a nice low f/stop. My problem is that I just can't afford an f/2.8 with IS, but am not too keen on having a much higher aperture.

I'm buying this lens all most entirely to photograph motorsport, so obviously shutter speeds will be above the focal length, which means I won't need IS right? But, I get that horrible feeling I'll regret it once I've bought the lens. So basically, how good and how important is IS too a lens since I have no experience with IS?

Thanks, Harry.

It depends on the IS. Canon's IS is rated to allow four stops slower photos to be taken. In my experience, that's pretty much true, it does wonders. Because of that, you can have an aperture four stops smaller than the non-IS camera and still get the same sharpness on the photo in terms of shakes. If you plan on photographing sports though, the faster shutter speed will be better.

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 12:12 PM
It depends on the IS. Canon's IS is rated to allow four stops slower photos to be taken. In my experience, that's pretty much true, it does wonders. Because of that, you can have an aperture four stops smaller than the non-IS camera and still get the same sharpness on the photo in terms of shakes. If you plan on photographing sports though, the faster shutter speed will be better.

So therectically using a f/4 stop lens with IS on is the same as using a f/0 lens with no IS? That would make a lot of sense to save money on speed and get a f/4 with IS! Would that be right?

mackmgg
Jun 4, 2011, 12:20 PM
So therectically using a f/4 stop lens with IS on is the same as using a f/0 lens with no IS? That would make a lot of sense to save money on speed and get a f/4 with IS! Would that be right?

Well almost, four stops below f/4 is f/1. So shooting f/1 and f/4 would get the same blur from camera shake. That being said, the IS just reduces blur from shaking at a lower shutter speed, it does not increase the shutter speed. f/1.4 would still have a faster shutter speed and be better at capturing motion.

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 12:26 PM
I have a 7D and a 70-200 non IS f/4 L.

I wish I had plumped for the IS version! Obviously it would be very nice if it was faster, but using this lens at the 200mm end is VERY difficult unless you use a tripod or have a very faster shutter speed. Obviously with only f/4 that's not always possible on all but the very brightest days.

I can compensate a little with iso, and luckily the 7D in low light is pretty good. Also, the quality of the L glass I'm using helps too. I'm not sure about 'lesser' lenses though.

I brought it for snowboarding shots, and I don't really want to carry a tripod up the hill all the time!!

That said... the lens rocks!!

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 12:27 PM
Well almost, four stops below f/4 is f/1. So shooting f/1 and f/4 would get the same blur from camera shake. That being said, the IS just reduces blur from shaking at a lower shutter speed, it does not increase the shutter speed. f/1.4 would still have a faster shutter speed and be better at capturing motion.

What would you recommend then, EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM or a EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM because they have roughly the same price, but can't I can't decide between the features!

Also, can you fit a canon extender to both of them?

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 12:30 PM
I have a 7D and a 70-200 non IS f/4.

I wish I had plumped for the IS version! Obviously it would be very nice if it was faster, but using this lens at the 200mm end is VERY difficult unless you use a tripod.

I guess it depends on what you're gonna use it for. I brought it for snowboarding shots, and I don't really want to carry a tripod up the hill all the time!!

That said... the lens rocks!!

I've heard that it gives seriously crisp results! But I'm in the same boat, I don't want to be carrying a tripod round with me, how is it at isolating the subject, i.e. Does it blur the background well?

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 12:40 PM
I've heard that it gives seriously crisp results! But I'm in the same boat, I don't want to be carrying a tripod round with me, how is it at isolating the subject, i.e. Does it blur the background well?

Yeah, the fact it's not very fast doesn't seem to matter to much with background blur and bokeh.

Ideally, I would like the top of the range f/2.8 IS version (trés expensive!!) but with hindsight I should have saved up the extra 300 quid and got the IS version of mine.

That said I am entirely happy with the lens, and like I said in the above post, you can use some tricks compensate for increasing shutterspeed.

The images it produces are very impressive.

Go into a shop and snap some shots on it at the 200mm end and your'll see if you can deal with it or not.

mackmgg
Jun 4, 2011, 12:44 PM
I've heard that it gives seriously crisp results! But I'm in the same boat, I don't want to be carrying a tripod round with me, how is it at isolating the subject, i.e. Does it blur the background well?

With telephoto, even higher apertures will give a pretty good bokeh. I have an old Canon FD mount 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 and even at f/5.6 the background is completely blurred for most shots.

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 12:45 PM
Yeah, the fact it's not very fast doesn't seem to matter to much with background blur and bokeh.

Ideally, I would like the top of the range f/2.8 IS version (trés expensive!!) but with hindsight I should have saved up the extra 300 quid and got the IS version of mine.

That said I am entirely happy with the lens, and like I said in the above post, you can use some tricks compensate for increasing shutterspeed.

The images it produces are very impressive.

Go into a shop and snap some shots on it at the 200mm end and your'll see if you can deal with it or not.

Haha, yes, I certainly wouldn't mind that version at all... The price is probably higher than the mountains you climb up to shoot though!

I think that may well be what I go for in the end then, sacrificing a bit of speed for the IS version of the lens, what I'm really excited about though is the shear quality you get with canon L lenses!

kallisti
Jun 4, 2011, 12:48 PM
You stated in the original post that you are photographing motorsport. So you are taking pictures of rapidly moving objects, right?

IS only compensates for camera shake, it does NOTHING to freeze moving objects. If your goal is to freeze action on rapidly moving objects, then IS will NOT help you. You need a fast shutter speed. You can get that either through raising the ISO or opening up the aperture. Higher ISO will introduce grain, larger apertures will blur the background and potentially introduce issues with focus (if you don't nail focus with a wide aperture on a long lens then the image will be blurry).

IS is a crutch to enable you to handhold at shutter speeds that should require a tripod. But if you really need a fast shutter speed to creatively capture your image, then IS isn't going to help you.

For static subjects, IS is great and can offset a slower lens. For dynamic subjects, you need a fast enough lens to enable the short shutter speeds needed to freeze motion.

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 12:48 PM
Haha, yes, I certainly wouldn't mind that version at all... The price is probably higher than the mountains you climb up to shoot though!

I think that may well be what I go for in the end then, sacrificing a bit of speed for the IS version of the lens, what I'm really excited about though is the shear quality you get with canon L lenses!

Yeah.. you will LOVE it, whichever you get!! Can't wait to see some shots when you have purchased it!!

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 12:52 PM
You stated in the original post that you are photographing motorsport. So you are taking pictures of rapidly moving objects, right?

IS only compensates for camera shake, it does NOTHING to freeze moving objects. If your goal is to freeze action on rapidly moving objects, then IS will NOT help you. You need a fast shutter speed. You can get that either through raising the ISO or opening up the aperture. Higher ISO will introduce grain, larger apertures will blur the background and potentially introduce issues with focus (if you don't nail focus with a wide aperture on a long lens then the image will be blurry).

IS is a crutch to be able to handhold at shutter speeds that really require a tripod. If you really need a fast shutter speed to capture your image, then IS isn't going to help you.

For static subjects, IS is great and can offset a slower lens. For dynamic subjects, you need a fast enough lens to enable the short shutter speeds you need to freeze motion.

Very good point, and what I'm asking, but others seem to reckon that if I want shoot this stuff handheld, with such a heavy long lens, then movement of the camera is going to happen, and therefore IS needed, but say you have a quick shutter seed, does that cancel it out?

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 12:53 PM
You stated in the original post that you are photographing motorsport. So you are taking pictures of rapidly moving objects, right?

IS only compensates for camera shake, it does NOTHING to freeze moving objects. If your goal is to freeze action on rapidly moving objects, then IS will NOT help you. You need a fast shutter speed. You can get that either through raising the ISO or opening up the aperture. Higher ISO will introduce grain, larger apertures will blur the background and potentially introduce issues with focus (if you don't nail focus with a wide aperture on a long lens then the image will be blurry).

IS is a crutch to be able to handhold at shutter speeds that really require a tripod. If you really need a fast shutter speed to capture your image, then IS isn't going to help you.

For static subjects, IS is great and can offset a slower lens. For dynamic subjects, you need a fast enough lens to enable the short shutter speeds you need to freeze motion.

But when you shoot at 200mm, you get a large amount of camera shake unless you can shoot at 1/1000 or higher.. so it would help.

Also like you said, he will more often be needing to shoot at smaller apertures anyway because of dof issues.

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 12:57 PM
Very good point, and what I'm asking, but others seem to reckon that if I want shoot this stuff handheld, with such a heavy long lens, then movement of the camera is going to happen, and therefore IS needed, but say you have a quick shutter seed, does that cancel it out?

You can cancel camera shake out by making sure your shutter speed is above the focal length of which ever lens you use.

ie 200mm=1/320 or higher (taking 7D sensor size into consideration)

This, however, doesn't necessarily translate in real life situations.

harrycobbold
Jun 4, 2011, 01:21 PM
But when you shoot at 200mm, you get a large amount of camera shake unless you can shoot at 1/1000 or higher.. so it would help.

Also like you said, he will more often be needing to shoot at smaller apertures anyway because of dof issues.


I think the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4 L IS USM seems like the best compromise of price and features, looks like there are some pretty good second hand offers on it as well!

cupcakes2000
Jun 4, 2011, 01:26 PM
I think the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4 L IS USM seems like the best compromise of price and features, looks like there are some pretty good second hand offers on it as well!

I agree, you'll be very happy I think!!

kallisti
Jun 4, 2011, 01:43 PM
For moving objects, the most important element will be choosing the appropriate shutter speed for the effect you wish to achieve. If you are trying to freeze your subject, then the necessary shutter speed will depend upon the speed of the subject and whether it is heading towards you or whether you are shooting it passing by you. These variables will dictate the shutter speed the image requires. The presence or absence of IS on a lens doesn't impact this "necessary" shutter speed.

Once the correct shutter speed has been determined, then you have to determine the correct aperture and ISO to get a proper exposure. Lower ISO will usually give better detail, contrast, and less noise. The magnitude of the effect of ISO depends on the camera/sensor. Aperture choices affect DoF (with the added "gotcha" that larger apertures make focusing errors more obvious).

Available light dictates which aperture and ISO choices are viable for a given shutter speed.

If your image requires very fast shutter speeds, then camera shake becomes less of an issue, even with a long lens. This obviously depends on the shutter speed that your image requires. As pointed out earlier in this thread, the usual rule-of-thumb is that you can shoot handheld with a non-IS lens at speeds equal to 1/focal length. So for a 200mm zoom, that would be 1/200th of a second. If you are shooting at 1/500th of a second or faster, then camera shake shouldn't be an issue....

If your image requires shooting at 1/500th of a second or faster, I'm not sure how much IS actually going to help you. As stated above, at these fast shutter speeds you don't need to concern yourself with camera shake. You may very well need a large aperture to attain correct exposure at 1/500th of a second, depending on available light. Or you may need to bump the ISO. But "camera shake" per se shouldn't be an issue.

What's more, in bright daylight, a "slow" consumer lens may be fast enough to freeze even quickly moving objects. With strong light you may be able to achieve the necessary shutter speed with a "relatively" slow lens.

For shooting fast-moving subjects, IS isn't all that great. Sports photographers aren't spending the big money on fast lenses because they like carrying around heavy glass and have money to burn. They do it because there isn't another option that allows them to capture the images they want/need in the lighting situations they find themselves in. IS isn't the answer, fast glass is. Depending on the specifics of your intended shooting, I'm not sure that IS is going to be that useful to you. IS is great for some applications. Sports photography isn't one of them.

The best answer for you would be to rent both of the lenses you are considering. Shoot with both and see which one allows you to capture what you want. If the slower lens with IS works, then great. If you need the faster lens, then great. But at least you know what you really need before you buy.

flosseR
Jun 4, 2011, 02:21 PM
100% agree with Kallisti

OreoCookie
Jun 4, 2011, 03:47 PM
IS helps against camera shake, but not motion blur. The longer the focal length, the faster the shutter speed needs to be if you want to freeze motion and avoid motion blur. Hence, a faster lens will allow you to shoot at faster speeds (or at lower ISO), a feat that IS doesn't give you.

Besides, I don't think the 70-200 mm f/4 IS is that great a deal (the non-IS version is a steal).

rusty2192
Jun 5, 2011, 07:56 AM
Have you been to a shop and actually held each lens in your hands? There is a HUGE difference in the handling, size, and most importantly, weight of the lenses. After messing with the lenses for about 10 minutes in the store, I decided that if I ever upgrade to the 70-200 line, I will almost certainly go for the f/4 IS.

That being said, if you NEED f/2.8, no amount of IS is a substitute. Only you know if you need it for motorsports.

FrankieTDouglas
Jun 5, 2011, 09:29 AM
Get the 2.8 without IS. The extra stop will not only give you higher shutter speeds, but it will also give you more flexibility in image creativity.

I have a 24-105L f/4 lens. It has IS on it, but I rarely have it turned on. It drains my battery quicker and if you expose correctly or use a tripod, I don't find it to be that big of a deal.

Ruahrc
Jun 5, 2011, 12:57 PM
While IS can be of help in some situations, also realize that there is a practical range of shutter speeds over which it is effective.

Anything around 1/2 sec or slower isn't going to be "fixed" by IS. Over that timescale, natural human hand shake is just too great for IS to compensate (i.e. the amplitude of the total shake overcomes the limit of IS to correct). Obviously YMMV as everybody's hands are different but it's a pretty reasonable rule of thumb.

Also, I know that Nikon's VR system samples at about 1kHz. I don't know what it is for Canon, but probably can be assumed to be similar. That means, around 1/500 or so SS, IS loses effectiveness, because it is only taking 1 or 2 readings throughout the duration of the exposure. Note that this limit is independent of FL.

Ruahrc

jabbott
Jun 5, 2011, 01:15 PM
Very good comments here. My own experience is that I've shot with the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. The 70-300 does not work well for fast moving objects because its aperture is too small. The 70-200 variants are much better in this regard, and are orders of magnitude sharper. I found the f/4L version to not accurately reproduce color. Blues looked very artificial with it. I opted for the f/2.8L II version despite the heavier weight (and price tag). It reproduces color very accurately and is truly top of the line in every way. I use it with a tripod a lot however, and in those situations the IS isn't important (although it does help when shooting video at 400mm with a 2X extender). If you are shooting handheld, you will definitely want IS, although like others said it will not prevent subject blur.

Alternatively you may want to consider the 135mm f/2L USM. It would be able to stop subjects better than any f/2.8L, although it may not be enough focal length for your needs.

The-Digital-Picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) has really detailed reviews for all of these lenses btw.

Flash SWT
Jun 6, 2011, 12:56 AM
I had to grin at everyone calling the 70-200 2.8 IS II a "heavy long lens." While I wouldn't call it light it isn't that heavy. I shoot with it handheld at least five days a week. So does everyone else I know.

I recently got the IS II after being without IS for the previous four years and am really glad to have it back. But I find myself in indoor situation frequently that make it very helpful. It has it's usefulness in certain sports situations as well. Shooting into a dark dugout, up into the crowd, etc.

Like most have said, to "IS or not" will really come down to the shooting situations you find yourself in. The main advantage is to allow you to slow down your shutter. If you'll never need to be shooting at 1/30th you might not need it.

The other advantage to me with the Canon lenses is that the IS version of the 70-200/2.8 is weather sealed like the 1D bodies but the non-IS version is not.

[I've never used the f/4 version.]

.

MattSepeta
Jun 6, 2011, 01:31 AM
Save up some extra dough and go for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS vI. I got a used one for a great price off, about a hundred more than new non-IS versions or IS f/4 versions.

TheDrift-
Jun 6, 2011, 05:23 AM
It's going to boil down to what you use the lens for.

I had the exact same debate earlier this year between:

70 200 f4 IS
70 200 f2.8 (non Is)

I went for the F4, its lighter (even the F4 you might want to consider a black rapid). If you carrying this all day long then the F4 makes a lot of sense.

The IS, 4 stops is a lot, yes it wont stop motion blur, but there are A LOT of times you want to shoot at 25/50/100/ Shutter speeds.

The optics in the f4 are newer than the non IS (f2.8) and many reviews rate them better, and on par (there or there abouts with the f2.8 IS).

I went with the F4 IS version, and pretty happy with it,

However if I had my time again I'd be tempted to hold out until I could get the 2.8 IS......but its a lot of money...

There really is very little between them and I'm sure you'll be happy with either

H2Ockey
Jun 6, 2011, 11:56 AM
All of this general input, it is good but the OP stated shooting motor sports.

Motor sports = VERY fast moving objects
You want as much flexibility in shutter speed as possible not have the ability to shoot the same light at a slower shutter speed.
IS will be useful no matter what if you get a lens with it you will like it.
BUT
For shooting motor sports?
Get a f/2.8 lens
Get a monopod if not a very good light tripod
Get a quality ball head for either monopod or tripod

You WILL wish for the f2.8 if you get an f4 lens. With a proper support system you may or may not ever care if you had gotten an IS lens if you don't get one from the start. There is a time and place for everything, and again if you get an top end IS lens you will not be disappointed in the feature, but for your intended subject of motor sports every bit of shutter speed you can get out of the lens the better.

Krovem
Jun 6, 2011, 01:26 PM
This post is really helpful! Thanks for asking the question. I have the canon 60d.

TheDrift-
Jun 8, 2011, 07:58 AM
All of this general input, it is good but the OP stated shooting motor sports.

Motor sports = VERY fast moving objects
You want as much flexibility in shutter speed as possible not have the ability to shoot the same light at a slower shutter speed.
IS will be useful no matter what if you get a lens with it you will like it.
BUT
For shooting motor sports?
Get a f/2.8 lens
Get a monopod if not a very good light tripod
Get a quality ball head for either monopod or tripod

You WILL wish for the f2.8 if you get an f4 lens. With a proper support system you may or may not ever care if you had gotten an IS lens if you don't get one from the start. There is a time and place for everything, and again if you get an top end IS lens you will not be disappointed in the feature, but for your intended subject of motor sports every bit of shutter speed you can get out of the lens the better.


good point I think the f4's got 2 versions of IS one normal IS and another for panning shots?

Never used that particular lens for panning shots myself but I'd imagine IS is gonna make life a whole lot easier...I know some people can make that look really easy....but its always taken my loads of tries to get a half decent shot.

Ive heard good things about the sigma 70 200 2.8 so that might be worth considering too, they do an IS verion too, not sure how much it is tho?

thatisme
Jun 8, 2011, 09:49 AM
I've got a Canon 7D, and I'm looking to pair it with some nice glass: Telephoto, probably 70-200mm, USM with a nice low f/stop. My problem is that I just can't afford an f/2.8 with IS, but am not too keen on having a much higher aperture.

I'm buying this lens all most entirely to photograph motorsport, so obviously shutter speeds will be above the focal length, which means I won't need IS right? But, I get that horrible feeling I'll regret it once I've bought the lens. So basically, how good and how important is IS too a lens since I have no experience with IS?

Thanks, Harry.

Harry, if your primary is motorsports, don't waste the money for IS. If your shutter speed is above 1/200, then IS really won't do much for you. If you are below 1/200 for fast motion, IS will actually hurt you in a lot of situations. My suggestion is to just work on your panning techniques and accept that your hit rate may not be 100%. Some lenses (and I think the 70-200 IS) has a panning mode for horizontal movement, but it leaves much to be desired.

To the person that mentioned that you need IS for a heavy lens like the 70-200 2.8, I would say that you obviously don't shoot much. That lens is heavier than almost if not all consumer lenses, but it is easily hand-holdable, and it is the most commonly used way of shooting with that lens. Tripods and monopods hinder motion (needed for panning) and more often than not, they get in the way.

I shoot aviation and motorsports events with a 400mm 2.8L IS handheld. (that lens is 13.5 lbs, and combined with a 1D MarkIIn, it pushes 15lbs) I get down into the 1/60 sec range without sacrificing hit rate too much. Very rarely do I use a tripod, and occasionally, I use a monopod, but NEVER do I use either for my 70-200 2.8, unless shooting a static subject.

Go for the 70-200 2.8 NON-IS lens if budget is a consideration. You won't miss IS at all (in my opinion)

compuwar
Jun 9, 2011, 08:55 AM
What would you recommend then, EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM or a EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L USM because they have roughly the same price, but can't I can't decide between the features!

Also, can you fit a canon extender to both of them?

The f/2.8 lens can shoot in half the light, or give you twice the shutter speed in the same light. If you shoot into the evening or early in the morning- or in heavy overcast conditions, this will be the difference between acceptable images and no images- especially for moving subjects- IS does not help you with subject motion blur- so if your race goes into dusk, you can get images at f/2.8 for much longer.

The f/2.8 lens will work reasonably well with a teleconverter, the f/4 lens won't. I don't find 200mm all that difficult to shoot hand-held, but then I usually shoot with a 400mm prime, and that I can only hand-hold for about half a minute at a time. I also don't think a 70-200 is all that heavy a lens, but again it's a matter of perspective.

For motorsports, a monopod is a good compromise between portability and stability- and it's cheaper than IS. While IS will help with panning, it's not like you can't learn to pan well without it, but get an overcast day, and need that extra stop of light and there's not skill that can make up for it.

Finally, the ability to control depth of field below f/4 allows you to isolate subjects more, which will generally produce better images.

I've shot Indy cars track-side at Indianapolis (hand-held) and motorcycle races track-side for racers )from a tripod)- there is no way I'd go track-side with an f/4 lens. I've met professional motorsports photographers, and they've all had f/2.8 lenses. I use a gimbal head with my tripod and never had any issues with it.

Paul

cleanup
Jun 9, 2011, 09:07 AM
I agree that IS/VR is unnecessary for fast motion. You will always want to shoot above a certain shutter speed, and if it can freeze a speeding car, surely camera shake will be cancelled out in turn. The IS will only help you capture stationary objects better at low shutter speeds, which you don't want. Go for the larger aperture, for greater flexibility in choosing a low ISO to achieve an appropriate shutter speed. IS would only help you capture a blurry car against a sharp background. :)

compuwar
Jun 10, 2011, 10:23 AM
I agree that IS/VR is unnecessary for fast motion. You will always want to shoot above a certain shutter speed, and if it can freeze a speeding car, surely camera shake will be cancelled out in turn. The IS will only help you capture stationary objects better at low shutter speeds, which you don't want. Go for the larger aperture, for greater flexibility in choosing a low ISO to achieve an appropriate shutter speed. IS would only help you capture a blurry car against a sharp background. :)

Actually, panning with moving subjects is one place where stabilization does help- with cars and bikes, you want a slow enough shutter speed that the wheels are motion blurred- you don't want to just freeze the action. However, stabilization isn't as flexible as having the additional speed- so as a trade-off it loses. Birds in flight and vehicles in motion are definitely assisted by stabilization if it's good- results vary though.

Paul