Speed or IS; which is most important?

[jabbott]

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 has really detailed reviews for all of these lenses btw.

 

[Flash SWT]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

This post is really helpful! Thanks for asking the question. I have the canon 60d.

 

[TheDrift-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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