Lense for Canon 30d

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I mainly
shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering if I need to
spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM version? Isn't the IS
mainly for slower shutter speeds anyway? Thanks for any help you can
provide.

Rick

"We don't slow down because we get old, we get old because we slow
down!"

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I mainly
shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering if I need to
spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM version? Isn't the IS
mainly for slower shutter speeds anyway? Thanks for any help you can

Right, if you are shooting to stop action, you will never use the IS. You
might use IS Mode "2" to help you with panning but I never do. It always
seems to "correct" at the wrong time and ruin the flow of my pan.

wrote:
I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I mainly
shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering if I need to
spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM version? Isn't the IS
mainly for slower shutter speeds anyway? Thanks for any help you can
provide.

Need? Probably not. But it's so useful so often, I just leave it on all
the time on my 70-200 lens, except shooting on a tripod.

--
john mcwilliams

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:46:04 -0700, wrote:

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I mainly
shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering if I need to
spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM version? Isn't the IS
mainly for slower shutter speeds anyway? Thanks for any help you can
provide.

I shoot a lot of sports with the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. I spent 5 days
shooting a softball tournament and took over 7000 images. I always
shoot with IS on (unless I'm using a tripod) and for this tournament I
used primarily AV mode. This allowed me to set the aperture to
control the DOF to focus sharply on the player and (when possible)
have the background fade out of focus. I adjust my ISO as needed to
get the shutter speed I need with the aperture I have set. This ALSO
allows me to turn and shoot on the sidelines - in this case into the
dugout. By using AV mode and IS, I can go from a shot like this:

http://kirkbrooks.exposuremanager.com/p/championship_game/20070805_1529_jcd_082136

to this:

http://kirkbrooks.exposuremanager.com/p/championship_game/20070805_1530_jcd_082821

(she bought both of these photos)

or from this:

http://kirkbrooks.exposuremanager.com/p/california_crushers/20070801-jcd-ls1f573024

to this:

http://kirkbrooks.exposuremanager.com/p/california_crushers/20070801-jcd-ls1f578111

(again, this player bought both of these photos)

without having to change my camera settings, and get sharp shots with
both images. (I can look up the exif info on those images later, if
you want. They are on the other computer.)

With IS I also don't have to worry about holding the camera super
still. Fast shutters only work to a point with telephoto lenses - you
can get a sharp shot at 1/200 at 200mm ONLY if you are holding the
lens and camera very still. If you are turning and shooting, and
turning and shooting, you need 1/600 or better to prevent motion blur
due to photographer/camera movement. With IS I have that added
sharpness when the light starts to fade. I don't worry if I get a
small amount of subject motion blur on the action points - in many
cases it makes the image rather than ruins it (e.g. the bat blurring
because it's moving at such a high speed) while the rest of the
subject (the batter's face) is remains sharp.

Finally, with IS you can keep shooting longer as the light fades,
without bumping the ISO as soon. You can also shoot hand-held in dim
light situations where you otherwise couldn't shoot at all (certainly
not without IS) such as using available light in a dimly lit bar.
See:

http://flickr.com/photos/jcdill/sets/72157594479195657/
http://flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=540209507&context=set-72157594479195657
etc.

I love my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens. It lives on my camera. Yes,
it's heavy. But after a while one gets used to the weight. OTOH one
never gets tired of amazing image quality that comes from this great
kit of glass.

jc

added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I
mainly shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering
if I need to spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM
version? Isn't the IS mainly for slower shutter speeds
anyway? Thanks for any help you can provide.

200mm is getting into a long telephoto. Is the aperture still f/2.8
at that end? My two Canon shorter zooms get smaller the longer the
focal length. Yes, you are correct that IS is to minimize shake at
slower shutter speeds, but the longer the tele, the higher the
shutter must be in general, and if light is not bright daylight
where you can get both a decent shutter speed and a good aperture
for what you want to do, then you might be forced to up the ISO.

My subjects don't move, they're cars parked at a show or in a
museum, but you're shooting moving objects which means you are
likely panning to get the shot you want. Hence, the camera is in
motion whilst doing this. My lenses don't have IS but I can see
some reasons why you MAY want it.

Smokey the Bear's "Only YOU can prevent forest fires applies here",
meaning only you know your needs and wants. Another consideration
using myself as the guinea pig, as I've aged and suffered from
energy-sapping illness, I find that I am more and more unsteady
with my Canon Rebel XT. Not enough to get shake, but again, I'm not
shooting moving things. So, how steady are your hands?

--
HP, aka Jerry

just bob added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....


wrote in message
oups.com...
I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I
mainly
shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering if I
need to spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM
version? Isn't the IS mainly for slower shutter speeds
anyway? Thanks for any help you can

Right, if you are shooting to stop action, you will never use
the IS. You might use IS Mode "2" to help you with panning but
I never do. It always seems to "correct" at the wrong time and
ruin the flow of my pan.

I was thinking about panning with an intentionally slow shutter o
blur the background to give the feeling of motion, and I was also
thinking of when the day is overcast, or early morning/evening.

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered wrote:
added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I
mainly shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was wondering
if I need to spend the extra $500 bucks and get the IS USM
version? Isn't the IS mainly for slower shutter speeds
anyway? Thanks for any help you can provide.

200mm is getting into a long telephoto. Is the aperture still f/2.8
at that end?

Of course!
(After all, most L lenses do that.)

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I
mainly shoot sports (volleyball, cycling) and I was
wondering if I need to spend the extra $500 bucks and get
the IS USM version? Isn't the IS mainly for slower shutter
speeds anyway? Thanks for any help you can provide.

200mm is getting into a long telephoto. Is the aperture still
f/2.8 at that end?

Of course!
(After all, most L lenses do that.)

That is what I have, Wolfgang, two L-glass lenses. On mine, the
longer the focal length, the smaller the max aperture, so I
thought it was a relevant question to ask. In my case I asked the
store manager to recommend image quality over IS.

In my younger days with a 1969 Nikon FTN, my longest lens was a
200, a non-Nikon crappy zoom. It was huge and heavy and a bear to
use without getting camera shake even at that range. I looked
into 300mm and 500mm mirror lenses and decided the price-benefit
ratio wasn't there and it would exacerbate problems I was already
having with getting enough shutter speed with ASA 25 KodaChrome.
Today, presumeably, one can go to very high ISO to get around
that. I cannot personally because my early testing of my Rebel
shows that it is noisy as low as 400, difficult to fix at 800 and
completely useless to me at 1600.

Now, since I know nothing specific about the OP's prospective
lens, I have no clue if it does or does not hold its large
aperture, but I cannot recall any digital I've own that did that
as I went further into telephoto. So, are you simply confirming
my question, or trying to make a fool of me?

--
HP, aka Jerry

HEMI-Powered wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg added these comments in the current

I am looking to buy the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 USM lense. I

200mm is getting into a long telephoto. Is the aperture still
f/2.8 at that end?

Of course!
(After all, most L lenses do that.)

That is what I have, Wolfgang, two L-glass lenses. On mine, the
longer the focal length, the smaller the max aperture, so I
thought it was a relevant question to ask.

It is a relevant question, but easily solved by looking up the
lens in question. The only L lenses with variable aperture I
am aware of are the superzooms (e.g. 28-300 f/3.5-5-6) and the
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (which is already a 4x zoom).

As you can see by the notation, it is clear which ones are of
variable aperture.

In my case I asked the
store manager to recommend image quality over IS.

IS means more elements (which also means flares happen easier,
but that's what a lens hood is for). The degradation of the image
should not be visible at all, but conduct your own experiments.
However, once you shoot slower times than you can hold steady,
IS is worth it's weight in gold.

OTOH, if you want maximum image quality, maybe a fixed focal
lens like the 200mm f/2.8 L might be a better (and certainly
cheaper) choice.

On the gripping hand, the 70-200 is a very good zoom.

BTW: watch the weight. The beast ain't light.

Today, presumeably, one can go to very high ISO to get around
that. I cannot personally because my early testing of my Rebel
shows that it is noisy as low as 400, difficult to fix at 800 and
completely useless to me at 1600.

Uh, you are comparing that to what? Or rather, how huge are
your prints and do you have people use loupes on them?

Personally, I don't mind pushing 1600 a stop or two, if
that's what it takes.

Now, since I know nothing specific about the OP's prospective
lens, I have no clue if it does or does not hold its large
aperture, but I cannot recall any digital I've own that did that
as I went further into telephoto.

Very common with point&shoot cameras, common with midrange
(D)SLR lenses --- but uncommon with L lenses, which the 70-200
(all 4 of them) certainly are.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

Of course!
(After all, most L lenses do that.)

That is what I have, Wolfgang, two L-glass lenses. On mine,
the longer the focal length, the smaller the max aperture, so
I thought it was a relevant question to ask.

It is a relevant question, but easily solved by looking up the
lens in question. The only L lenses with variable aperture I
am aware of are the superzooms (e.g. 28-300 f/3.5-5-6) and the
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (which is already a 4x zoom).

I have two with variable apertures: 17-40mm and 24-70mm. Also, my
Sigma 18-125 is also variable.

As you can see by the notation, it is clear which ones are of
variable aperture.

In my case I asked the
store manager to recommend image quality over IS.

IS means more elements (which also means flares happen easier,
but that's what a lens hood is for). The degradation of the
image should not be visible at all, but conduct your own
experiments. However, once you shoot slower times than you can
hold steady, IS is worth it's weight in gold.

OTOH, if you want maximum image quality, maybe a fixed focal
lens like the 200mm f/2.8 L might be a better (and certainly
cheaper) choice.

On the gripping hand, the 70-200 is a very good zoom.

BTW: watch the weight. The beast ain't light.

My longer lens is a beast that ways almost two full pounds and is
huge!

Today, presumeably, one can go to very high ISO to get around
that. I cannot personally because my early testing of my
Rebel shows that it is noisy as low as 400, difficult to fix
at 800 and completely useless to me at 1600.

Uh, you are comparing that to what? Or rather, how huge are
your prints and do you have people use loupes on them?

No, I meant that one can create higher DOF by stopping down but
to do that in any finite amount of light means either longer
exposure times or higher ISO or both. Which one uses is a matter
of judgment and experience.

Personally, I don't mind pushing 1600 a stop or two, if
that's what it takes.

Now, since I know nothing specific about the OP's prospective
lens, I have no clue if it does or does not hold its large
aperture, but I cannot recall any digital I've own that did
that as I went further into telephoto.

Very common with point&shoot cameras, common with midrange
(D)SLR lenses --- but uncommon with L lenses, which the 70-200
(all 4 of them) certainly are.

-Wolfgang

--
HP, aka Jerry