Hi - how critical is it to have your Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM lens be an "IS" lens. Will I be able to most pictures out of my hand or will I need a tri-pod for most of them? Is it worth it to spend the extra $$$$'s for the "IS" version?
That depends... IS only helps when you are on "the edge"... Basically once your shutter speed is less than 1/xxx where xxx is the length that you are shooting at, IS will help.
For example, if you are shooting a 200mm lens @ a shutter speed of 1/320, then you are fine, but if you want to shoot that 200mm @ say a shutter of 1/80, then you'll be wanting that IS.
Hi - how critical is it to have your Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM lens be an "IS" lens. Will I be able to most pictures out of my hand or will I need a tri-pod for most of them? Is it worth it to spend the extra $$$$'s for the "IS" version?
It depends on your purpose. Obviously, if you intend to use a tripod, it's a moot point. You don't need the IS.
If you intend to hand-hold, yes, you'll want IS.
And in less than good light, you'll plain need it.
The bokeh differs quite a bit between the two versions. I'd compare the effect.
I own the f/2.8/non-IS.
...if you are shooting a 200mm lens @ a shutter speed of 1/320, then you are fine, but if you want to shoot that 200mm @ say a shutter of 1/80, then you'll be wanting that IS.
I'd almost agree, if we assumed that conditions are perfect, i.e. stationary object in consistently good light with premeditated support and breathing. Even then, I'd rather take that shot on a tripod (or IS sans tripod) and come away with a sharper image.
Totally off topic here, but what is different about the bokeh on the IS to non-IS lens?
Matt
With IS engaged, the image is stabilized, but only for the plane of focus. Background (or foreground)objects can shift relative to the subject during exposure, and the effect is often seen as doubled edges on foreground or background objects. It doesn't show up all the time, but when it does it can be quite ugly.
Varies from person to person - I'll happily hand-hold that lens down to 1/100, because I'm blessed with steady hands. Besides, it's not that long a lens and the 2.8 lets in lots of light; I don't think you can say that with a 70-200, you [i]need[i] either IS or a tripod.
Varies from person to person - I'll happily hand-hold that lens down to 1/100, because I'm blessed with steady hands. Besides, it's not that long a lens and the 2.8 lets in lots of light; I don't think you can say that with a 70-200, you [i]need[i] either IS or a tripod.
Hum, yes and no. No, because I'll bet that if we'd compare your 1/100 handheld to my 1/100 tripod-mounted we'd have no difficulty telling which was which when we look at the resulting image at 100% , or even less. If you shoot for the web only, not a big deal. If you intend to print, especially at decent sizes, I think you'll soon heed my thought on the matter.
