IS v non IS: I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obviously want to be able to buy the best glass I can to go on a 7d for sports and wildlife, but if I am aiming to use it for...

LondonStu Loc: London, England

I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obviously want to be able to buy the best glass I can to go on a 7d for sports and wildlife, but if I am aiming to use it for pretty high shutter speeds, would the image stabiliser make much difference ? The reason I am asking is that the cost difference is almost double for the IS , and I can't find a refurbished one anywhere, so if I buy new it will be a case of having the non- IS this year or have to wait much longer for the IS model. Any views out there, what would you do ?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

All I can say is that IS won't stop subject movement....If you are on a tripod, it won't be needed...

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

All of my lenses are L IS except for the 17-40.
I shoot wildlife and I will not get a non IS if I have a choice.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

BigBear wrote:

All of my lenses are L IS except for the 17-40.
I shoot wildlife and I will not get a non IS if I have a choice.

Do you use a tripod?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

LondonStu wrote:

I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obviously want to be able to buy the best glass I can to go on a 7d for sports and wildlife, but if I am aiming to use it for pretty high shutter speeds, would the image stabiliser make much difference ? ...

Unless you are shooting between 1/30 and 1/500, IS or VR is not worth the extra money.

It will not function properly above 1/500 due to the sampling rate and might actually mess up your pictures. It cah help for medium shutter speeds down to about 1/30 but below that you might as well be on a tripod.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Replying to Scott.
I do not. I'm usually running through the woods chasing birds.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

LondonStu wrote:

. . . but if I am aiming to use it for pretty high shutter speeds,. . .

What is a high shutter speed in your opinion? If you are going to be shooting at 1/250th a second or faster handheld, you should be able to get by without image stabilization.

I personally would go with the IS version of the lens- even though it would take longer to save up for it.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

LondonStu wrote:

I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obv... (show quote)

I would check all of the camera stores and inquire as to what they have that is used. My dealer does not post used equipment so I have to see him personally and ask what he has. I got my 70-200 from him that he took on trade for an upgrade.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

My take on IS or VR or whatever it's called on whichever system it is that you are using, is that it is simply another thing that can fail on the camera.The more complicated the lenses become, the more that can go wrong with them. I'd use one if someone gave me one, but I don't own any stabilized lenses..I'm still using many older manual focus lenses on my D7100, D300 & D70s...Cheaper too...

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

The IS is built into the lens but I have had absolutely no problems with any of them. I don't have 3rd party lenses, only Canon L series.
I've taken with and without IS on and I tell the difference. It isn't so much what shutter speed you use, it's how far away your subject is from you that makes the most difference.

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

Screamin Scott wrote:

My take on IS or VR or whatever it's called on whichever system it is that you are using, is that it is simply another thing that can fail on the camera.The more complicated the lenses become, the more that can go wrong with them. I'd use one if someone gave me one, but I don't own any stabilized lenses..I'm still using many older manual focus lenses on my D7100, D300 & D70s...Cheaper too...

I am of the same mind as the Screamin Scott. My money lenses are not IS, VR or AFS. They are old tech but they keep going and going.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

CurreyPhoto wrote:

I am of the same mind as the Screamin Scott. My money lenses are not IS, VR or AFS. They are old tech but they keep going and going.

If your subject is close and setting still, then IS isn't needed, however ... mine never stop and neither do I if I want to keep up.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

LondonStu wrote:

I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obv... (show quote)

From what I have read there is a big difference in the weight of the lenses. Have you considered that factor?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

My usual subjects seldom stop...Then again, they are within 6 inches from the front of my lens too...

BigBear wrote:

If your subject is close and setting still, then IS isn't needed, however ... mine never stop and neither do I if I want to keep up.

Bhead

LondonStu wrote:

I am saving to buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 L and I obv... (show quote)

Personally, I don't think it matters as this lens should always be used with a mono-pod or a tripod given whatever circumstance you are working in. IS is nice if you have to move quickly and can get away with hand-holding at high shutter speeds. Good luck in making your decision.