Image Stabilization?
Apr 25, 2012 18:36:15 #
How important do you think the IS (or OS) is on a 70-200mm 2.8? Will be mostly used with a monopod.
Apr 25, 2012 18:42:20 #
What camera? If your camera has IS in the camera then you never need it on the lens. The general is when using a tripod or monopod to turn off IS. There are very times that I have turned IS on when using a monopod.
Apr 25, 2012 18:46:07 #
Apr 25, 2012 18:52:29 #
dame_wolf wrote:
How important do you think the IS (or OS) is on a 70-200mm 2.8? Will be mostly used with a monopod.
If I were shopping for a new lens, and I had an affordable choice of IS or non-IS, I'd get the IS. It's one of those things that you will probably appreciate if you have it. I haven't read any reports about it not working or being a waste of money. Of course, the price difference would be the deciding factor in my case. I don't think anyone regrets getting a lens that is too good.
Apr 25, 2012 18:56:12 #
I would say you should always get the newer lenses with it. You never know when you will not be able to use support. And I am old and it really makes a difference. Not bad, but I do have days that it really comes in handy. And I still have all my old lenses from the mid 60's. So chances are you will never out grow it. :-D
Erv
Erv
Apr 25, 2012 19:04:22 #
I purposly bought the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 model WITHOUT OS on it as I have never needed image stabilization with lenses in that range. ( I used the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 for almost 20 years before selling it in favor of the Sigma) Also you save a lot in weight and in purchase price. I use that fast lens primarily handheld for sports and IS/OS/VR, whatever seems to slow down the AF system and leaves you with a chance of missing shots, especially if shooting rapidly.
From 300mm up I find the image stabilization systems very valuable.
From 300mm up I find the image stabilization systems very valuable.
Apr 25, 2012 19:16:04 #
Here's why I am asking: I got a very good deal on a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and of course bought it. I don't think they really knew what they had... I don't use it a lot but for those big arena shoots it's great! Now I have been hearing about how great the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is and how it's just as fast, sharp, and the make quality is comprable. The Canon is selling on ebay right now between $1600-1800 for a mint lens (mine is mint). If I put it on ebay and sold it for even $1600 I'd make a few hundred dollar profit and buy the Sigma. If I bought the Sigma without the OS I'd have enough left over to get the Sigma 150-500mm too. I'd have to buy them used but that's ok. Now usually I do insist on buying the IS (or OS) but with it being used on a monopod would I need it? I could get it with the OS and save a little more before getting the 150-500.
Apr 25, 2012 19:32:30 #
Whatever you do, get the OS on the 150-500mm Sigma if you end up with it. You will NOT be impressed with the older non-OS version of that lens.
Good luck and congrats on getting a good deal, so long as it wasn't stolen! LOL
Good luck and congrats on getting a good deal, so long as it wasn't stolen! LOL
Apr 25, 2012 19:33:02 #
Wabbit
Loc: Arizona Desert
dame_wolf wrote:
Here's why I am asking: I got a very good deal on ... (show quote)
Hey Doc ..... seeing you already have one with IS why don't you just shoot a few pics with the IS turned off to see how you do ...... I know I shudda made that left torn in Albuquerque.
Apr 25, 2012 19:38:25 #
[quote=WabbitHey Doc ..... seeing you already have one with IS why don't you just shoot a few pics with the IS turned off to see how you do ...... I know I shudda made that left torn in Albuquerque.[/quote]
I know I can do it. Just kinda wondering if anyone ever chose the non-IS and regretted it. I may just get it and not wonder.
I know I can do it. Just kinda wondering if anyone ever chose the non-IS and regretted it. I may just get it and not wonder.
Apr 25, 2012 19:44:04 #
Wabbit
Loc: Arizona Desert
[quote=dame_wolf]
It's gonna help your camera shake, I like it, but that's me.
WabbitHey Doc ..... seeing you already have one with IS why don't you just shoot a few pics with the IS turned off to see how you do ...... I know I shudda made that left torn in Albuquerque.[/quote wrote:
I know I can do it. Just kinda wondering if anyone ever chose the non-IS and regretted it. I may just get it and not wonder.
I know I can do it. Just kinda wondering if anyone ever chose the non-IS and regretted it. I may just get it and not wonder.
It's gonna help your camera shake, I like it, but that's me.
Apr 25, 2012 20:10:01 #
I have the older (non IS) Canon 70-200 2.8 and would not spend the extra cash just to get IS. I'd say maybe one time in a hundred using this lens I've thought IS would have been helpful.
Apr 26, 2012 06:54:14 #
i turn mine off when shooting outside with good light,
you can buy the 70-200 non IS for around 1200 or less
the IS around 1600 or more
you can buy the 70-200 non IS for around 1200 or less
the IS around 1600 or more
Apr 26, 2012 06:57:54 #
gforce
Loc: south carolina midlands
i don't know how important it would be but if it is availiable why not get it. as they say, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. as iv'e read here, you can get some camera shake even with a tripod, i would try it both ways, with is on and with is off and see what you get. if you do get a little shake, try a remote.
Apr 26, 2012 07:06:12 #
gforce wrote:
... better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
My motto in life.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.