Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS -v- non-IS Version

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:32:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi all,

I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...

My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
used on a tripod).

I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
benefit of your wisdom?

Many thanks,

Colin

More about : canon 200 version

Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 9/19/05 4:32 PM, in article Y7GXe.13054$iM2.1103209@news.xtra.co.nz,
"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).
>
> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
> benefit of your wisdom?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Colin
>
>
Sounds like an urban myth type rumor to me! Could that "someone who has a
friend . . ." produce some test shots?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Y7GXe.13054$iM2.1103209@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hi all,
>
> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind
> was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less
> sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).
>
> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
> benefit of your wisdom?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Colin
>
>
He's right on one aspect, the non IS version is marginally sharper than the
IS version, in ideal conditions. The difference in sharpness is measurable,
but probably not visible to even the aided eye. But the IS will enable you
to get sharper images, overall, than the non IS. Even on a tripod, if you
are on a slightly unstable platform, like a bridge, dock or upper level
parking garage, there will be some movement. IS will compensate for that.
The IS does not need to be turned off on that lens, the older IS lenses,
like the 75-300, 28-135 and 100-400 do have that. But the second and third
generation of IS deals with a tripod just fine. The 70-200 f2.8 is third
gen. IS.
IS is ALWAYS worth the price, if you can afford it.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Related resources
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:32:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> On 9/19/05 4:32 PM, in article
> Y7GXe.13054$iM2.1103209@news.xtra.co.nz, "Cockpit Colin"
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>>
>> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my
>> mind was made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is
>> a pro-Canon professional photographer" that the IS technology
>> results in less sharpmess compared to the non-IS version, even when
>> the IS is switched off (eg being used on a tripod).
>>
>> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give
>> me the benefit of your wisdom?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
> Sounds like an urban myth type rumor to me! Could that "someone who
> has a friend . . ." produce some test shots?

Last I read, the IS need not be switched off for tripod use in later
models; if you try to use the wrong IS mode while panning, some
degradation is a possibility. What I know for sure, the IS has allowed
me to get some unexpectedly good results at amazingly low shutter
speeds.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:06:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).

The difference is negligible. Get the the IS version, unless you know
you will never be hand-holding it.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BF54C40D.3C6F1%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...

> Sounds like an urban myth type rumor to me! Could that "someone who has a
> friend . . ." produce some test shots?

I wasn't 100% convinced either - but when I hear things like "has enough
money to have bought either, but bought the non-IS version because it was
sharper", I have to admit, it does rattle me somewhat :( 

Since it's "the friend of a friend", it's not as easy to talk test shots -
especially as he doesn't own the IS version. I just thought some may have
some experience with both, or at least be able to point me in a direction
that dispells the myth.

Thanks,

CC
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:47:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127235999.397155.79080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
>
>> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind
>> was
>> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
>> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less
>> sharpmess
>> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg
>> being
>> used on a tripod).
>
> The difference is negligible. Get the the IS version, unless you know
> you will never be hand-holding it.

If you don't mind, please send me a negligible $500 check and make
yourself available to hold the camera for me since it will be heavier.

Seriously, I think it's good that Canon has the IS and non-IS versions.
I shoot sports, and there isn't much need for it. A monopod costs 1/10th
what the IS costs, and both get equally sharp pics.

Dave
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:42:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>IS technology results in less sharpness compared to the non-IS version,
>even when the IS is switched off (eg being used on a tripod).

Yes, optical quality on the non-IS objectively beats out the IS by a
hair at 60 yards when both are mounted on tripods. If my recollection
is correct, the difference is attributable to the additional element
required for IS gyro. And if all of your photos are going to be taken
with a tripod, mirror-up, then the non-IS might provide you with a
nominal advantage; but it won't provide you with anything that can't
be accomplished just as well with routine post-processing.

But using a lens like this in the real world; and perhaps with a 1.4X
which translates into virtual hand held shooting at 450mm; any modest
advantage provided by the non-IS lens will pale in comparison to
shakey-camera-syndrome.

Regardless of superlatives, my 70-200 IS under ideal conditions,
handheld shots produce stunningly sharp pics; far beyond need. Under
less favourable circumstances, I can only speculate as how much IS
contributed to the final results.

Bottom line: I couldn't be more pleased with the performance of my
70-200 2.8L IS, which is oft attached to a 1.4X!

But I've only provided a single insignificant opinion. For further
extensive array of user experiences, check out:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

Regardless of your choice of an 70-200 2.8L, there is no way you'll be
dissapointed with either.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).
>
> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
> benefit of your wisdom?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Colin
>
>
The myths continue...
The non IS lens is capable of spectacular pictures and it seldom needs
"ideal" conditions to get them. It's one of the few Canon "L" series
lenses I have any respect for.

The Image stabilizer is another thing entirely. It is heavier to start
with and believe me these lenses are not for hand holding all day unless
you have a robotic arm!

There are several versions of IS from Canon (like their cameras they are
learning how to design properly). Only the latest version produces equal
sharpness to a non IS version and can be used on a tripod or wedged
against a rock.

Choose your subjects... Moving fast cars and birds in flight are a no,no
for the IS lens, regardless of what some might tell you. The Gyro takes
time to wind up and even tho there have been small strides made by
Canon, the thing still has to get going. Here in lies it's principal
fault. As far as low light is concerned, yes... It's ll give you a stop
or two but how many shots will you take in near darkness, Colin?

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:54:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D gpi06011gd@news2.newsguy.com...
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127235999.397155.79080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Cockpit Colin wrote:
>>
>>> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind
>>> was
>>> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
>>> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less
>>> sharpmess
>>> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg
>>> being
>>> used on a tripod).
>>
>> The difference is negligible. Get the the IS version, unless you know
>> you will never be hand-holding it.
>
> If you don't mind, please send me a negligible $500 check and make
> yourself available to hold the camera for me since it will be heavier.
>
> Seriously, I think it's good that Canon has the IS and non-IS versions.
> I shoot sports, and there isn't much need for it. A monopod costs 1/10th
> what the IS costs, and both get equally sharp pics.
>
> Dave
>
It's 3/4 lb heavier. And IS helps on a 'pod, too.
Despite what Doug says, IS works in panning on that lens, as it does on the
100-400, and the long teles.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks Skip. One question though - you mentioned "that the 70-200 IS is
THIRD generation IS technology" - most of the reviews I read refer to it as
only 2nd generation - have they come out with a 3rd generation 70-200
(obviously that would be the one I would want if they had).

Cheers,

CC

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h6KXe.11554$GQ4.2332@fed1read05...
> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Y7GXe.13054$iM2.1103209@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
> >
> > My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind
> > was
> > made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> > professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less
> > sharpmess
> > compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg
being
> > used on a tripod).
> >
> > I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me
the
> > benefit of your wisdom?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> He's right on one aspect, the non IS version is marginally sharper than
the
> IS version, in ideal conditions. The difference in sharpness is
measurable,
> but probably not visible to even the aided eye. But the IS will enable
you
> to get sharper images, overall, than the non IS. Even on a tripod, if you
> are on a slightly unstable platform, like a bridge, dock or upper level
> parking garage, there will be some movement. IS will compensate for that.
> The IS does not need to be turned off on that lens, the older IS lenses,
> like the 75-300, 28-135 and 100-400 do have that. But the second and
third
> generation of IS deals with a tripod just fine. The 70-200 f2.8 is third
> gen. IS.
> IS is ALWAYS worth the price, if you can afford it.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rGNXe.13164$iM2.1107496@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Thanks Skip. One question though - you mentioned "that the 70-200 IS is
> THIRD generation IS technology" - most of the reviews I read refer to it
> as
> only 2nd generation - have they come out with a 3rd generation 70-200
> (obviously that would be the one I would want if they had).
>
> Cheers,
>
> CC
>

No, the 75-300, 28-135 were gen 1, the 100-400 L was gen 1 1/2 (had a
panning mode), the long teles, i.e. 300 f2.8L, 400 f2.8L, 500 f4L and 600
f4L were gen 2 (mount on tripod without turning IS off) and 70-200 is gen 3,
as is the new 28-105 f4L and 70-300 f4.5-5.6. There's an extras stop of
compensation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:28:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

>> It's 3/4 lb heavier. And IS helps on a 'pod, too.
>> Despite what Doug says, IS works in panning on that lens, as it does on the
>> 100-400, and the long teles.
>
> Yes, if you don't want to track as well.

So sayeth the ignorant FUDster. However, outside of its delusions,
with IS on or off, the 'tracking' is fine on all of the lenses
mentioned above.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 11:09:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).
>
> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
> benefit of your wisdom?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Colin
>
>

I "carried" the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens attached to the 1DMK11 camera body
for a full days shooting and at the end of the day I was so damn tired
of carrying the weight, I didn't care if I never used the 70-200 f2.8 IS
lens again. That's not to say the lens is a dog, no, not by any means. I
consider the lens to rate among the best of Canon, but the weight was
just too much for me to enjoy the use of my equipment.

Upon returning the lens to the store (it was a loaner), I instead bought
the 70-200 f-4 and the 70-300 DO IS lens for about the same costs as the
70-200 F2.8 IS lens. Actually, both lenses were a tad slightly cheaper
than the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. I have yet to regret my decision. The
20-200 f4 is a great lens (photo quality as good as the 70-200 F2.8 IS
lens) and it's usefulness is no different than the many years spent with
other 70-200 f4 lenses such as the old Nikon lens. I use the lens for
portraits (babies to adults) and for other non-recreational uses. The
70-300 DO IS may not be quite as good as the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens but
it's a hell-of-a-lot more versatile and the difference in photo quality,
to the naked eye, is so minimal it may well be considered imperceptible;
that is, in the 70-200 range. I use this lens for recreational
activities and I consider this lens to be a winner.

The final decision is your call Colin but I would suggest you seek a way
to have a days shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens in manners you will
tend to use the lens and then decide accordingly. The lens is not
inexpensive and you may opt, as I did, to consider other equally useful
alternatives.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:56:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:32:56 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
>My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
>made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
>professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
>compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
>used on a tripod).
>
>I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
>benefit of your wisdom?

Take a look at these test images.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

"Conclusion

The conclusion is that IS works. With the 75-300/4-5.6IS lens, you
probably gain at least 2 stops, probably three stops, of hand
holdability. Under the lowest light conditions, the consumer zoom IS
lens can outperform an "L" series non-IS lens (though it wouldn't beat
the 300/4L IS lens!). On a tripod, the "L" lens is a clear winner, but
for web images the difference will most likely not be visible."
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 12:05:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

> Still acting like a coward and still distorting the situation. Since
> when does tracking become panning?

Skip M was talking about "panning" (go look it up).

You babble about "tracking" and "focus".

I call you on _your_ distortion, idiot red herring, goal-posting, etc.

You start crying, and (hilariously) ask "when does tracking become
panning"?

Intellectually dishonest physician, heal thyself.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>>
>
> It's 3/4 lb heavier. And IS helps on a 'pod, too.
> Despite what Doug says, IS works in panning on that lens, as it does on the
> 100-400, and the long teles.
>

Yes, if you don't want to track as well.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:44:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Pix on Canvas wrote:
>
>
>>>It's 3/4 lb heavier. And IS helps on a 'pod, too.
>>>Despite what Doug says, IS works in panning on that lens, as it does on the
>>>100-400, and the long teles.
>>
>>Yes, if you don't want to track as well.
>
>
> So sayeth the ignorant FUDster. However, outside of its delusions,
> with IS on or off, the 'tracking' is fine on all of the lenses
> mentioned above.
>
So according the deciple... You can put your 70~200 on a tripod with IS
switched on and use it in focus tracking on a 20D? I'd like to see that
one produce sharp pictures.

I've got plenty of examples to prove the opposite. Switch off IS and
amazingly the same subject is focused sharply next time 'round... I must
have had a different 70~200 "L" series f2.8 IS lens to you, do you
think? Oh yes... Mine was white!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:433101a2$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>>
>> I couldn't care less what an anonymous troll had to say about anything.
>> If you ever did identify yourself and maybe let us see some of your
>> sharply focused pictures from your 70~200 with IS turned on while
>> tracking a moving target from a tripod, you might get a grain of
>> credibility. As it is you are just another floater in bowl that sooner or
>> later will get flushed away with the rest.
>>
>> --
>> Douglas...
>> Have gun will travel... Said his card.
>> I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
>> 1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
>
>
Sorry about the inadvertent top post...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VEkYe.24393$sx2.2593@fed1read02...
> Not the 70-200 IS, but the 100-400 IS, another lens you called into
> question:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44142568
>
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44142567

Both tracking and panning...
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:35:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'll be buying one of these in the next few weeks ...
>
> My first inclination was to go for the IS version, but just when my mind was
> made up I've been told by "someone who has a friend who is a pro-Canon
> professional photographer" that the IS technology results in less sharpmess
> compared to the non-IS version, even when the IS is switched off (eg being
> used on a tripod).
>
> I wouldn't have a clue either way - can any of you good folks give me the
> benefit of your wisdom?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Colin
>
>
Colin... Just to ease you mind about this expensive purchase, I thought
you'd like to see a real world example of what you can expect. I shot
this (and about 50 others just as sharp) from a rubber boat during a
shoot in 2003.

The EXIF reports a dud shutter speed but this used to happen when I used
the 1.4x converter. Despite what a spineless troll suggested, I really
do have the evidence to back up my claims!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:45:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:
>>
>>
> Colin... Just to ease you mind about this expensive purchase, I thought
> you'd like to see a real world example of what you can expect. I shot
> this (and about 50 others just as sharp) from a rubber boat during a
> shoot in 2003.
>

Whoops... Forgot the URL!
Age is not the problem, it's the demon drink! Too much water and not
enough Scotch.
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/70200-pics.htm


--
Douglas...
January 31, 2006 5:36:39 AM

I shoot Nikon, but I use my 70-200 f/2.8 VR ALOT, which is basically the same thing. I love that I have VR on it, and it's really helpful when I'm shooting speakers in small rooms where flash would disturb people - on a monopod with VR/IS on, I can get great 1/30second exposures.

Oh, and I shoot sports too, although I don't find VR to be nearly as useful then.
!