Another lens question - I have a dilemma!

[geetey]

I was closely following along DVC Jen's thread until she decided to get lights as I am in the market for an additional lens. I know the lens I want (Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS) but it is not in the budget.

I have some 'shake' issue due to medical reasons so I have been looking at IS lens. I currently have the Rebel XT, the Canon EFS 17-85 IS and the "nifty fifty". I need more reach. I shoot kids, indoor sports, indoor events, hence my desire for the f2.8. My budget is @ $600.

Is there another lens I should be considering but am missing in my research? With a fast lens (f2.8) will the IS become unnecessary?

ANY suggestions are welcome!

 

[jann1033]

for what it's worth having shake issues myself, all i can say is on our vacation i used my 28-135 mostly due to them...while i really love my 70-200 f4 normally and would probably recommend it for a lowerish light, it is no good when i am shaking more than usual ( normal is enough make my handwriting bad but not enough for visible tremors as a for instance, more is visible tremors) and i can't use it at all with the teleconverter unless i use a tripod so i am considering a 70-300 IS for those times. it's around $500 so not horrible and was rated pretty good. not as good as the 70-200 f4 but even with a monopod, i couldn't get enough stability with it but the 28-135 was ok...i thought with the f4 aperture i'd get a better shot than the 5.6 of the IS lens but the IS evidently made up for the difference in aperture...granted the mm is only 135 so not as long a mm to contend with and my arms were pretty bad but many of the 70-200 shots were pretty much stinko unless i used a tripod/support of some kind. a 2.8 probably would help but my pockets are shallow at the moment not sure any of this would help with indoor stuff but just my experience

so not sure if you can find a is in your budget but this long winded post is basically saying imo it would be worth it if you can

 

[geetey]

LOL, Jann! I appreciate your input. I remember that you have the shakey thing too (different reason but same result ). I thought you had problems with your 28-135 IS? I wasn't putting it on my list because of that. Isn't that a lens that can be really soft? Hmm... now I might be confused!

I don't need a 'white' lens - just something fast enough for indoor sports shots and low light indoor shots.

 

[jann1033]

LOL, Jann! I appreciate your input. I remember that you have the shakey thing too (different reason but same result ). I thought you had problems with your 28-135 IS? I wasn't putting it on my list because of that. Isn't that a lens that can be really soft? Hmm... now I might be confused!

I don't need a 'white' lens - just something fast enough for indoor sports shots and low light indoor shots.

tons and tons of problems with the first copy but after they replaced the body and lens it has been great...copy 2 is sharper than copy 1 ever was. occasionally i get a little purple fringing but not nearly as much as with the first "fixed(?)" lens...if i were to get a copy of that lens i'd definitely buy local and try it out pre-purchase since they seem to vary so much. i don't take much indoors and no sports so i don't know if that would be fast enough for you or not, it goes to f5 round 70 or so. it worked fine for some surfers but naturally that was outside in daylight. i was surprised though at how much the is helped. we went on 2 boat trips and the first one i used my 70-200 and don't think i have much of anything at all usable from that one, second trip used the 28 and most are ok, of course lightening etc would have been different as well but the first one i thought i had fast enough speed so i think it was mostly the shakiness

 

[DVC Jen]

These were taken in May at my DDs dance recital. I sat in the front (row 2 or 3) so I was close to the stage and the bright lights.

I took them with the 28-135IS lens. They are not perfect - but compared to the ones I had taken a few months earlier I am happy with them.

These were taken at her last dance competition for the season with a Quantaray (Wolf/Ritz camera brand) 70-300mm Not IS. I was a lot further back from the stage with these - did not use the tripod and I am sure they would be a lot sharper if I had used one - but we aren't allowed. At competitions we are lucky if we can take photos without being questioned (routines are stolen alot - sadly it can be very cut-throat )

I had the lens wide open and an ISO of 800 just to get my shutter speed to something that would stop the action.


Anyway - not sure if this is helpful or not - but I thought I would try.

 

[geetey]

thanks for the sample shots, Jen (not sure how I missed this thread earlier - sorry!) The 28-135 definitely performed better than I expected but I won't have those bright lights at basketball games.

Since I am on the coach's bench, I can't use a tripod. It would just be me bringing up the camera on occasion to snap off some shots(gotta coach still too ).

anyone want to offer any other suggestions?

anyone have an opinion about whether a really fast lens makes IS redundant or unnessary? (not sure if that question makes sense)

Maybe I should sell my 17-85 and start from scratch! That would probably make the most sense but I have never sold a lens before.

 

[mabas9395]

If you are shooting indoor sports/events, IS won't help at all. And f/2.8 might not even be fast enough depending on the lighting of the gym/stage. I have the 28-135 and used it indoors when I had to, but not anymore. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which my wife thinks I love more than my children, which isn't true, I only love it as much as my children, not more) but for indoor sports , I go with my 85mm f/1.8. It is actually sharper than the 70-200 (primes are usually sharper than a zoom) and its faster (better in low light) and its only about $320. And if you like bokeh (that blurry background that makes your subject POP), it does that very well too.

85mm should be fine from the coaches bench at a basketball game, if you decide you need more reach you can go with the 100mm f/2.0 for only $370, both are great lenses but the 85mm also works as a great portrait lens.

 

[geetey]

Interesting thought to go with a fast prime... I think I like it!

I think my dh thinks I would love a 70-200 f2.8 IS as much as him so he doesn't want to even open the door to that. He wants a puppy instead. I did try the arguement that once I get *this* lens, I will be done spending money (unlike the continuous cost of a dog - we already have one) but that didn't fly either. I wonder why?

I will have to go look at those two primes and see if one might be a good fit. I already have the 50mm.

If I went with the prime, I guess, for length, the 28-135mm IS would be a good addition to my collection?

 

[AndrewWG]

If you are shooting indoor sports/events, IS won't help at all.

Can I take a curious moment here and ask why you say this? I know that it won't help stop the action of a game or anything, but if someone has shaky hands, I personally think this would help alot. Am I missing something? Is it because you are moving the camera so much, following the action?

All I know is that I never realized how much the IS system helps until I was in WDW last month. I had the 70-200mm f2.8 IS in non-IS mode. I realized that it looked more shaky than usual (handheld of course) so I looked and realized the switch had the IS off. While looking through the viewfinder, I switched it to the on position and it made a HUGE difference! I was only shooting some of the animals on the tree of life from across the pond, but I think it still made a huge difference.

So why would it not be good in the basketball situation?

 

[Master Mason]

If your shutter is fast enough to stop the action, then it is fast enough to remove hand shake from the equation as well.....

 

[AndrewWG]

If your shutter is fast enough to stop the action, then it is fast enough to remove hand shake from the equation as well.....

I suppose that's true. Ok, so when IS it good? Just slower shutter speed shooting? Also, why didn't I know this? I should certainly have known this by now. My brain just isn't what it used to be...

 

[Master Mason]

IS is good for low light, for slow moving or stationary objects...

so If you wanted a night shot of the castle, you might be able to get down to 1/15 of a sec hand held because of the IS.

I have also heard that the newer IS is helpful for panning, where your deliberately moving the camera, but you want a slower shutter to give you that blurry effect

It is also helpful on the super zooms or primes because with the really long focal lenght camera shake is more pronounced....

And I would guess but am not sure that IS might be helpful if you were physically moving, say in the safarri car, but on this one I am not sure.

 

[boBQuincy]

Hah! Stay in this group and your spending will continue forever!

One thing that can really help to reduce shakiness is a monopod. This doesn't work well for moving subjects, nor does IS, but can make a good 2 stop difference for stationary subjects.

The monopod doesn't need to be very heavy, just fairly stiff in the vertical direction, where camera shake has the most effect.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

IS just stablizes the camera. It's only useful when you are worried about camera shake. It doesn't stabilize the subject. I think you use Ritalin for that.

A monopod can be used for either. You can use it to support the camera or you can beat your subject with it to keep them from moving.

 

[jann1033]

not sure about the new IS but the old is( circa 28-135 lens) IS not helpful while traveling in a moving vehicle of any type, even a wdw one
you do need a heavier monopod for mark's suggestion...don't get the ultra light i got, just won't do the trick for part B..for that i take my heavy duty wood walking stick but then i have to work fast to transfer the camera before it wears off...just don't have the strength in my arms i used to, sigh.

 

[DVC Jen]

IS just stablizes the camera. It's only useful when you are worried about camera shake. It doesn't stabilize the subject. I think you use Ritalin for that.

I have found benedryl equally effective Mark. The best thing about either of those options - MUCH less $$.

 

[geetey]

I don't think ritalin or benedryl will help me! You guys are cracking me and confusing me!

I think DH is getting SO tired of me trying to decide he is close to forking over the $$ for the f2.8 IS!

Looks like having MS might actually be working in my favor for once.