is IS really that important ?


JoelT

New Member
Dec 1, 2008
43
0
0
Singapore;Tampines
#1
I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
Need help here
 

BigBaby

New Member
Feb 16, 2011
378
0
0
Earth
#2
It is better to get the IS. Especially when you are hand holding it on 200mm or at a low light situation. Everything will be quite shaky and cause image blur. Unless you are shooting at a very high shutter speed. Or you know you will be mounting on a tripod at most of your shoot.

Yeah I understand the 70-200 IS MKII is very expensive. Maybe you can try searching a used 70-200 IS MKI at CS BNS section. Can get it below $2K. If you don't want used ones than another alternatives will be the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM. The review for it are quite impressive for it's price. Although the performance will not be as good as the White Canon L but the difference is not very significant. So you must weigh it yourself whether the price and lens performance difference which is more feasible. Cheers!
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#3
Get the second hand Mk I in good condition.

Your clients will never know the difference, ..... really.

I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
Need help here
 

allenleonhart

Deregistered
Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#4
It is better to get the IS. Especially when you are hand holding it on 200mm or at a low light situation. Everything will be quite shaky and cause image blur. Unless you are shooting at a very high shutter speed. Or you know you will be mounting on a tripod at most of your shoot.

Yeah I understand the 70-200 IS MKII is very expensive. Maybe you can try searching a used 70-200 IS MKI at CS BNS section. Can get it below $2K. If you don't want used ones than another alternatives will be the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM. The review for it are quite impressive for it's price. Although the performance will not be as good as the White Canon L but the difference is not very significant. So you must weigh it yourself whether the price and lens performance difference which is more feasible. Cheers!
well u realise if in lowlight, u handhold at 1/30, its still gonna blur...cause of subject blur.

then if ur gonna shoot at 1/200 ++ to reduce subject blur......... aint it 1/focal length? shld be handholdable already...
at least when i shoot footballs, i go up till 1/500

at least i find IS kinda overrated... a good to have, but certainly not a must have.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#5
well u realise if in lowlight, u handhold at 1/30, its still gonna blur...cause of subject blur.

then if ur gonna shoot at 1/200 ++ to reduce subject blur......... aint it 1/focal length? shld be handholdable already...
at least when i shoot footballs, i go up till 1/500

at least i find IS kinda overrated... a good to have, but certainly not a must have.
TS mentioned low light situation, highly unlikely for him to get shutter speeds of 1/focal length unless his ISO is like 12800?
 

Deathegg

New Member
Dec 4, 2010
393
0
0
Punggol
#6
For me, IS is important coz it's really difficult for me to hold the camera very still.
 

yyD70S

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2005
2,454
0
0
Singapore
#7
As long as you know it's limitations and when to turn it off, IS is an added bonus.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,451
37
48
Singapore
#8
JoelT said:
I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
Need help here
In short YES!
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,451
37
48
Singapore
#9
UncleFai said:
In short YES!
Also, not sure about Canon, but in my opinion (and experience) the third party stabilization by Sigma and Tamron is in fact better than Nikon's.
 

Dec 12, 2009
1,961
2
0
#11
Not a must. I survived well with 135mm no IS and 400mm well with aid of monopod. IS system adds on weight and price too.
 

markyen

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2007
1,664
1
38
On a famous Island
#12
TS. I would vouch for having IS. Unless your object is stationary then I find monopod able to cater for that - I am not refering to stopping action here, cuz I find while recomposing I love the IS there. However, in the case of 70-200 (heavy lens) I'll go for IS. try MK I version 2nd Hand to stay within budget. You wont be that dissappointed with it.
 

#13
practice you technique to reduce shake. breathing, holding, how you press the shutter release. perhaps get a monopod for low like situations and you ll be fine. i shoot a manual 300 f4 and get away with 1/200 handheld, 1/80 on a monopod even lower when i use mirror up mode.
 

Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#14
TS mentioned low light situation, highly unlikely for him to get shutter speeds of 1/focal length unless his ISO is like 12800?
mm. so u think about it. if u are gonna handhold at 1/30, no matter how good IS is, it will never be able to compensate for the shutter speed required to stop subject blur.

i mean if subject isnt gonna move, i will just tripod and shoot the subject.

if it is, i'll need something like 1/200 to just get a good shot.

and if so... IS shldnt be that impt anymore
 

JoelT

New Member
Dec 1, 2008
43
0
0
Singapore;Tampines
#15
Thanks everyone for the reply, I shall go try out this sat regarding the 70-200 non IS and the Sigma one.
Cheers !
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#16
Also, not sure about Canon, but in my opinion (and experience) the third party stabilization by Sigma and Tamron is in fact better than Nikon's.
Actually for the 70-200/2.8 lenses,

1. Tamron do not offer VC.
2. Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS claims 4 stops, but is tested to be effective around 3 to 3.1 stops.
3. Nikon's 70-200VRII claims 4 stops, but is tested to be effective to around 3.7 stops.

Tested by lenstip.com. So for 70-200/2.8 lenses, Nikon is still king. Not sure about the Canon 70-200 IS m2.

That said, the VCs from consumer lenses like 18-270VC and 70-300VC from tamron is said to perform better than Nikon's consumer grade lenses.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#17
Thanks everyone for the reply, I shall go try out this sat regarding the 70-200 non IS and the Sigma one.
Cheers !
In good light, IS is less of an issue. But if you are going to be shooting in low light, IS actually comes in very very very handy.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#18
mm. so u think about it. if u are gonna handhold at 1/30, no matter how good IS is, it will never be able to compensate for the shutter speed required to stop subject blur.

i mean if subject isnt gonna move, i will just tripod and shoot the subject.

if it is, i'll need something like 1/200 to just get a good shot.

and if so... IS shldnt be that impt anymore
If you can't stop subject blur, then use it lol
 

ahliang

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
225
0
0
#19
For me IS is important for such focal length. You r going to do fine during the start but by the end of the day you will wish the IS was there.
 

Top Bottom