70-200mm F/2.8 USM IS or No IS the is the question

[mr_e_mn007]

I am looking at purchasing the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 USM. The Problem I am having to making the determination on whether I really need to go with the Image stabilization or not. We have a photography business and we take shots ranging from portraits to weddings to bands and in reading some reviews, I am hearing conflicting information that the IS is completely unnecessary because the F/2.8 is fast enough and others reporting that IS is a must with a lens of this range.

Need some assistance as this is a big purchase and $700 is a good amount $ dollars to be saved and not that much to spend extra to get the IS.

Any feed back is greatly appreciated

Jeff Greenburg
Photography

[inkista]

Whether or not you need IS comes down to the range of shutter speeds you plan to shoot at with this lens.

Remember, without stabilization, the rule of thumb for eliminating camera shake from a picture while handholding is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal_length or faster. So, @200mm, that means 1/200s. If you have two stop IS, then it would let you handhold down to 1/50s. Three stop IS, 1/25s.

If you're shooting faster than 1/200s (say, for sports to "freeze the action), you probably don't need IS.

But if you think you'll be shooting in the 1/50s-1/200s range (say architecture, or posed portraits with still subjects) with this lens @200mm, then IS is going to be invaluable.

The main things you need to know are that IS only helps with camera shake blur, not subject motion blur, and that it's not a substitute for a tripod--you're still going to have a "lower bound"--a handholding threshold, at which point camera shake blur will still show. IS is more like a monopod than a tripod.

And, alternatively, you could just use a monopod. It's more of a hassle, but quite a bit less expensive, and it'll work with all your lenses.

[mr_e_mn007]

Thank you so much for the reply that makes sense. All of the replies I was seeing before were not providing the clear detail that you provide.

Excellent, I shoot with a Canon 50D as well.

Jeff G

[CaptainNH]

I bought my 70-200/2.8 IS for shooting weddings, mainly for shooting without flash in poorly lit churches.

The 3-stop advantage that the IS gives me enables me to keep my ISO down, with resultant improvement in IQ.
The 70-200/2.8 IS II's updated IS gives a 4-stop advantage - that's 1/4s shots at the 70mm end!!

I pair my 70-200 with my 5D2, if you're going to use yours with your 50D, you'll appreciate the IS even more.

Sure, $700 extra for IS is a fair hit, but, in all reality, it's only a couple of portrait shoots or a couple of extra hours at a wedding.

Why not rent one for a wedding and see if your camera store will refund the cost of renting when you make a purchase?

[GMAN]

I'm in the market to purchase a 70-200/2.8 IS. What advantage is it to purchase the Version II compared to the previous lens?....Is there really that much of a difference in the quality, due to the $500 more one would pay for the newer lens?

[inkista]

Well, the marketing copy says redesigned optics for better CA (5UD+1 flourite, vs. the four UD in the MkI), improved AF performance, smaller minimum focus distance, and upgrading from 2nd to 5th generation IS.

Given that there's been a shortage of the MkII reported, I'd say a lot of folks think it's worth it, as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a bread'n'butter lens for a lot of pros who can write them off as business expenses on their taxes.

[ZeeTerminata]

Truthfully dude, if you want to save even more money you could perhaps go with the Sigma or Tamron versions. Granted their autofocus can be problematic but they are used by professionals.

Also, I've read on ThePhoblographer.com that he really just uses the old 80-200mm F2.8 L that Canon made long before the 70-200mm lenses came out. It's still really sharp when he shoots weddings.

Granted, he's also got a 5D Mk II and 7D.

As for GMan's response, the latter 70-200mm F2.8 has lots of extra contrast I believe.

Hope this helps.