hey guys

I just cant make up my mind plus comes down to money. Do i purchase a lens with IS or can i get away without IS.

The lens will only be used for ceremony and speeches probably waltz.

All tripod work.

what experience have people had......

Rob

I just cant make up my mind plus comes down to money. Do i purchase a lens with IS or can i get away without IS. All tripod work. what experience have people had......

Although I haven't done any side by side tests, I've worked with both 70-200 IS and 70-200 non-IS. It's funny though, I often think the IS works almost like a placebo effect, (but as they say, placebo or not, as long as it works ;^)

By the way, I'm now trying to get rid of the 70-200 L IS: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/private-classifieds/479887-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-l-lens.html

-- peer

How much for your lens?

If you don't need IS this is a nice low cost alternative to the Canon.

Sigma’s APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM





All the Best!

If you don't need IS this is a nice low cost alternative to the Canon.
Sigma’s APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM

Yes indeed. I also had one of those -- built as a tank. I did a quick & dirty A/B test between the Sigma and the Canon, and I was surprised to see the Sigma holding up pretty well. But somehow its autofocus started to act up intermittently, so I ended up returning it.

-- peer

Hi Robert,
I have both lenses and the non-IS version is clearly sharper than the IS-lens. Something to take into account, perhaps...

I think you're asking about whether to get the IS or non IS version. For tripod work you don't need IS. In fact IS will cause a "floaty" image in many cases and needlessly burn through your battery.

Having said that, if your heart is set on a Canon 70-200 zoom, the new mark II is much sharper than the mark I. I can't stand how unsharp the mark I is at F/2.8.

But don't forget about the 200mm F/2.8. It's a very nice, sharp lens that lacks IS but is relatively cheap. I have the 135 F/2.0 and love it and will most likely pick up one of these as well.

Just finished a shoot with 70-200 F4 with mono-pod with IS on. Rock solid results, wide open 200mm F4, video looks great, very sharp. Still from video attached 24p

There is not an ounce of doubt in my mind, IS all the way.

The 70-200 f2.8L IS is an insanely good lens, you'll never regret buying it, you'll never sell it, it's that good.

Now, locked down on a tripod for video only, maybe not, but I can tell you right now, for photography, I can hand hold at 200mm in insanely dark rooms without flash on my 5D2.

You'll regret it, plus, it'll hold it's value that much better (the IS version vs. non-IS that is).

Hi Robert, I have the 70-200 IS and it is by far my most favorite lens for still photography. If you are never going to use the lens off sticks that I'd guess the non IS is perfectly fine. BUT. If you are ever going to shoot stills or even video hand held, then please go fo the IS. You will regret down the road not going for it.
Hope that helps!
Craig

People who say that you don't need IS on a telephoto lens when shooting video on a tripod....well they obviously don't shoot outside on windy days.
The IS really helps remove that little juddering that will be magnified on any long lens, however good the tripod. I have a superb Vinten tripod but still leave the IS on my 70-200 and particulaly when adding in the 2X converter, which makes this lens into a great 140-400 for video.

Dave how stable is the image at closer to 400 and quality?

Robert...you asked about the image at 400mm

I find it superb even when the Canon 2x converter is fitted. Don't forget we aren't producing a 21MegPix image when we shoot video with a 5D2, but a 2MP one. However obviously we still want a great sharp image and ideally also a nice look even to the 'out of focus' parts of the picture.

That depth of field that a 400mm lens on a 5D2 has does become a big issue when 'operating'. I'm mainly shooting aviation subjects and....they move alot! So I'm continually chasing focus.
This can be helped by accepting say f16 or f22 but I've got a follow focus on there as you can't easily get smooth focus changes with the lens barrel and I'm also using another follow focus to allow easier control of the zooming.
I often wish I had the ease of operation that a dedicated videocamera would give...but I do love the picture from the 5D2.

Prime lenses can obviously produce outstanding results. I have a set of Olympus lenses from my old OM1 cameras. These work beautifully on the Canon but I use the 70-200 plus converter almost all of the time because I appreciate that the IS helps with wobble at the long lens settings and I can zoom back to find my subject again when I've 'lost it'.

David
aviation video (and lots of my archive stills) at Focal Planes (http://www.focalplanes.co.uk)

Regarding the thread topic, I would say IS is a must for my kind of uses and can even help a LOT on a tripod on the long end (in my case with a 7D and Canon 70-200 IS F4, sometimes with a Canon 1.4X converter on).

Now an off topic question for David. I too have some lovely old OM1 lenses. Which adapter do you use/recommend please? - you can PM me if you don't want to hijack the thread. Thanks - and as someone else who likes shooting planes (mainly at Duxford) I've seen some of your work and like it :-)

I bet there will be some good deals on 70-200 f2.8 IS v1's as they are traded for v2's.

I still have my v1 and it is a superb lens, both for video and stills. Te boketh is absolutely first class.

I highly recommend this lens, if you can afford it. F2.8 makes a big difference and so does IS, both on stills and video.

If it's always going to be on a tripod without using an extender, the non IS version will work for what you're doing. It's a bit sharper and a lot cheaper.

Personally, I find that with a long zoom, one tends to shoot at 70mm or 200mm, but not so much in between. At least that's true for me.

So, if you don't need IS, consider the 200/2.8L prime. I got mine used for $600. Add the 2x extender for $300, and you've got the long-end covered without breaking the bank. The focus ring travel is shorter than I'd like, but probably no worse than on the 70-200 zoom. Image quality on the 200/2.8L is simply stunning. Nail the focus and you can cut object edges with a knife.

Personally, I find that with a long zoom, one tends to shoot at 70mm or 200mm, but not so much in between. At least that's true for me.

That's often how I use it too -- either at 70mm or 200mm -- but it's oh-so-nice to have those two focal lengths in one and the same lens.

-- peer

I seriously can't even imagine not owning this lens (f2.8 IS version), but then again, I guess I'm primarily a photographer who does some multimedia on the side. It's the one lens I bring to every single event I cover never fail. I change up all the other lenses I bring depending on the event, the venue, what I'm trying to accomplish, and how I feel -- but that lens always comes no matter what if it's a serious gig.