To IS or not....

Old May 14, 17, 11:34 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 53
To IS or not....

I have seen a very good condition used Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM for sale, which would complement my 100-400 lens nicely.

I have also seen for sale a very good condition EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM for sale, with no IS.

I would use the lens primarily on my visits to Kruger NP, and Swaziland, photographing mainly large mammals (elephants, leopards, and whatever else comes along).

My question is: is it worth the extra money and weight to purchase the IS model? (Although the difference is only a couple hundred , the weight is 1310g vs 1570g), and given that I take along the 100-400, I am conscious of the weight difference.

Any thoughts...?
HGOLI is offline  
Old May 14, 17, 4:04 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K
Posts: 728
IS or not comes down to what SS you will shoot. There is the issue of subject movement that IS is useless for, than shooter movement and focal length. If one isn't a shaker then a good rule of thumb has been 1/ focal-length.

Of course if you are shooting in poor light and can't boost ISO then the few grams are worth it. I find even on my 24-70 which is a huge lens that having VR/IS is invaluable.

I would suspect that on a safari the best shots would be dawn and dusk, thus two three bodies one with 70-200, one with 24-70 and then one with 100-400, LOL.

I hear weight and camera limits on these safari type jumps can be very strict!

I really wish CaNikon would embrace inbody stabilization but that is another topic.
chipmaster is offline  
Old May 16, 17, 1:38 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Thanks chipmaster. As a 5ft nothing female, the weight of the lens can be tough going occasionally, especially when lugging it in cabin baggage, but I think it's worth it.

I 'think' I will probably go for the IS, t because I can't bear that feeling of 'if only' should I purchase the non IS. We'll see....
HGOLI is offline  
Old May 18, 17, 10:07 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K
Posts: 728
Lugging. DSLR and big lense are a challenge. Have you considered a roller bag, lots of options to ease the burden somewhat

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Roller-Cases/ci/4339/N/4232860964
chipmaster is offline  
Old May 18, 17, 10:38 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: US
Programs: (PM)AA UA DL SPG
Posts: 957
Originally Posted by HGOLI View Post
I have seen a very good condition used Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM for sale, ... I have also seen for sale a very good condition EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM for sale, with no IS. ... Any thoughts...?
There are v1 and v2 versions of the IS f2.8 lens. The used market price for the v1 is usually less than the v2, all other things being equal. The v2 lens spec is +1 stop more of IS, 3 stops for the v1 vs 4 stops for the v2.

More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_...0%93200mm_lens
reft is offline  
Old May 18, 17, 11:28 am
  #6  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Reft, yes I was aware about the V1 and V2, but think i'd be pretty content with the V1, I can always part ex for the newer version I suppose.
HGOLI is offline  
Old May 27, 17, 7:58 am
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Well, I made the decision, just ordered a used v1 70-200 2.8 IS version, and, for good measure, ordered a new Mk II 100-400 too.

Just need another trip back to Kruger now....
HGOLI is offline  
Old May 28, 17, 1:41 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1
IS all the way...

I shoot with a combination 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a pair of 7D and 7D2 crop sensor cameras. I would not be without the IS capability. IMO it is worth its weight in gold. I also have a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Mark-2 lens with IS capability. The new IS is just terrific,

IS frees me from needing relatively bright light when shooting at long focal lengths. It also allows me to shoot at a far slower shutter speed in lower light. Granted, IS will not stop subject motion but, as a photographer for over 50-years now, I can work around subject motion. However, besides using a steady rest, there is no work around for camera shake.
RPCrowe is offline  
Old May 29, 17, 5:45 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,306
i hate to be a product-evangelist, but if you are very concerned about weight, the mirrorless system not only save a ton of weight, but have superb in-body stabilization that is probably the best on market.

specifically the olympus em system with 5-stop IS in body, and now their newer telephoto lenses have lens stabilization that can be combined with body stabilization for total of ~6 stops of advantage. panasonic has a similar scheme.

as example, on olympus with 40-150mm and teleconverter, i can shoot an exposure at 1/20second perfectly sharp, opening up to f4.0, handheld, with 420mm equivalent reach.

thats a really really wide envelope of shooting for 1400g total of lens AND camera.
deniah is online now  
Old May 31, 17, 9:33 am
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Just received my lenses. Very very nice indeed. In fact, even the weight wasn't as bad as I imagined. RPCrowe - agree, as I said, I did opt for the IS, and the Mk II 100-400 is fantastic.

I also have the 7D, and was going to get the 7D2, but for a recent trip to Kruger, I wanted to take a second body, so I opted for the 80D, and I've used that more than the 7D. It's a cracking camera, more so in low light conditions (in live in woodland, so always struggling with low light conditions). I use the 7D primarily for bird shots now, and the 80D for everything else.
HGOLI is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread