Christmas present help-lense

[woody64]

I am looking for help choosing a Christmas present...for myself! I have been very good and my wife wants to reward me for my good behavior.

I love taking action shots of the kids and their sports-football, baseball, soccer and a lot of swimming. I am currently looking at the Canon 70-200/mm f2.8L USM with or without IS. Can someone tell, or better yet show, me what the difference is besides $$$.

Will I notice a difference? What about other uses for the lense-macro etc?

Thanks for your help. I really enjoy this board and will try and become more active. I am currently shooting with a digi Rebel.

 

[ukcatfan]

I cannot speak directly from experience, but if you are shooting sports, the IS is taken out of play. You will already be shooting at a shutter speed that will take any camera shake out ot the picture. I would bet that there are other things about the IS lens that make it better than the non-IS though.

Kevin

 

[ndelaware]

The dollar difference is for the Image Stabilization on the more expensive lens. The 70-200/mm f2.8L IS USM has Canons latest IS system which can be worth up to 3 stops of correction for camera shake. The IS system also has a "panning" mode so you can use the IS feature for following subjects moving horozontally. You are looking at about a $500 difference for the IS.

 

[Master Mason]

Woody,

My wife just gave me that gift for christmas, only a little early

I got the non IS version. I too mostly shoot sports and the like and also use a monopod while doing so. I didn't feel the IS justified the cost for what I do with it. I asked the same question on this thread http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1230902&referrerid=&highlight=

 

[orljustin]

Either way... Great wife! (Great lens).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

There is no difference other than the IS. In theory, the non-IS version should be marginally superior optically because if the lack of IS elements, but I've never heard of anyone demonstrating the difference in practice. Either way, it's an awesome lens. The only drawbacks are the weight (it's hefty) and that it draws a lot of attention. Get used to people bugging you. And they'll all assume that it's some sort of ultra-zoom capable of seeing people miles away.

I agree that for all sports action, the IS is usually superfluous. The only exception is that the panning mode on the IS lens allows you to track your subject while still getting the benefits of IS to stabilize motion perpendicular to your panning direction. It actually works when you pan in any straight line direction, not just horizontally. Still, I find it really hard to pan well even with the help of the IS. You've got to track your subject extremely well. I just don't have the knack. I use a high shutter speed, cut out the subject, motion blur the background, and paste them back in. It's cheesy and labor intensive, but it works for me.

 

[timned88]

personally, i have the 70-200 f4L and love it

 

[boBQuincy]

Still, I find it really hard to pan well even with the help of the IS. You've got to track your subject extremely well. I just don't have the knack. I use a high shutter speed, cut out the subject, motion blur the background, and paste them back in. It's cheesy and labor intensive, but it works for me.

Mark, that's disgraceful and morally reprehensible! I do it too.

Maybe 25% of my pan shots of racing cars come out well, so I take four times as many as I think I should. Even then, a lot of times the car just doesn't look like it's going fast enough so I use the "Mark" method.

Anyway, back to the thread, I would get the IS for the extra flexibility. It would be great for the tigers at AK!